Preamble

The House met a half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CALDERDALE WATER BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Calderdale Water Bill [Lords] be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Water Resources Act, 1963

Mr. Tudor Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will initiate discussions with a view to amending the Water Resources Act, 1963, to relieve the hardship being encountered by people who have to pay an annual fee of £5 to river authorities for abstracting water.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Edward Rowlands): Preliminary discussions are taking place concerning possible amendments to the Water Resources Act, 1963, and these include the question of the licence fee.

Mr. Watkins: Have all the river authorities in Wales, in addition to the Severn and Wye River Authorities, shown interest in this?

Mr. Rowlands: I cannot speak for all authorities, but consultations are going on among ourselves, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Water Resources Board and the Association of River Authorities.

Springboks (Sports Facilities)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will forbid the use of sports facilities in Wales under the control of his Department by the Springbok football team.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): There are no sports facilities under the control of my Department.

Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend agree that concern in Wales for personal freedom and human rights is just as active as concern for rugby football? Would he further agree that the events at Swansea recently reflected no great credit on the forces of law and order in Wales? Will he in future use his undoubted personal influence to prevent neo-Nazi football teams from polluting the soil of Wales?

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend raised many subjects in that supplementary question. My views on apartheid are well known and I am positive that they are shared by the overwhelming majority of the Welsh people.

Mr. Gower: Is it not undesirable for us to say anything in this connection that might exacerbate anything that has happened in the past?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think that anybody has tried to exacerbate it. We all have a right to show what our sentiments are where sport is based on race.

Housing Act, 1969

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to bring the provisions of the Housing Act, 1969, to the attention of Welsh local authorities.

Mr. E. Rowlands: As well as the circulars and leaflets which have been issued, three very successful conferences were held in Port Talbot and Llandudno in October. All Welsh local authorities were invited to participate and the response was almost complete. Over 500 delegates attended the conferences and all but 13 local authorities were represented.

Mr. Anderson: That is a helpful answer, because the benefits of this Act


are particularly relevant to Wales. What is being done to bring the concept of the general improvement area, an innovation in the Measure, to the attention of the relevant local authorities?

Mr. Rowlands: We have at the various conferences been calling attention to the general improvement area concept. I am glad to see that a general improvement area has been declared by one local authority, that four other improvement area schemes have been submitted informally and that officials of my Department have in every possible way been encouraging local authorities to declare general improvement areas.

Mr. Alec Jones: As the National Coal Board is one of the biggest landlords in South Wales, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the N.C.B. is doing all that it should in accordance with the spirit of the Act?

Mr. Rowlands: I am well aware that the N.C.B. is one of the largest landlords in Wales, and in particular is one of the largest holders of the oldest of our housing stock. I am hoping very soon to have discussions with the N.C.B. to see what action it intends to take in connection with improvement grants.

Local Government Reorganisation (Glamorgan and Monmouthshire)

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects his officials to complete their review of local government reorganisation in the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire.

Mr. George Thomas: I hope to complete my review about the turn of the year.

Mr. Anderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a most reassuring Answer, in view of newspaper reports about there having been indecent haste to ensure that the report is completed within three weeks? Can he go further and say what consultation he anticipates after the report is received by him?

Mr. Thomas: When I have reported my views and proposals to the House I shall, of course, be ready, anxious and willing to talk to all authorities concerned with my proposals.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: We have been all through this once or twice before. Although I commiserate with the right hon.

Gentleman in his difficulty, may I ask him to give an assurance that we will have an opportunity to debate this matter fully in the House? Will he also repeat his assurance to have further consultations, not merely with the Glamorgan and Monmouthshire local authorities, but with all Welsh local authorities which wish to have such consultation?

Mr. Thomas: I can give no such undertaking. I wish to make it perfectly clear to the House that the proposals for the remainder of Wales, outside Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, stand as we put them in the White Paper. As for the House debating the matter, that is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman might consider the Welsh Grand Committee for such a debate.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the indecision of his Department in this matter is causing considerable consternation and anxiety, particularly in the County Borough of Newport? Will he now say when his original White Paper proposals will be implemented, bearing in mind that he has declared his public support for them on many occasions?

Mr. Thomas: I think my hon. Friend is a little mistaken. It is not indecision which has upset Newport, but the decision I announced which upset Newport. I assure him that it would have been wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which decision?"] Patience is a virtue. The proposals will in due course be made known to the House.

Welsh Books (Grant)

Mr. Ifor Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what further consideration has been given to the question of an increase in the grant for Welsh books

Mr. George Thomas: I am pleased to say that the Government grant will be increased from £7,500 to £12,500 a year for the three-year period beginning 1970–71. This represents an increase of 150 per cent. since 1964–65.

Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will be very well received by those concerned about the future of the language? Is he further aware that this demonstration of practical help is a far more effective way of


helping the language than destructive action taken by some people?

Mr. Thomas: I much appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. He was very lately concerned in the affairs of this Department. I hope that this act on the part of the Government will rightly be seen in Wales as a further gesture of our concern for the language and our determination to sustain it.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's sense and scale of values are shown by the fact that whereas they have been spending only £7,000 a year to assist the oldest living literature in this island, and perhaps in Europe, they have spent quite recently no less than £426,000 on building a palatial residence for the Ambassador in Franco Spain?

Mr. Thomas: I am surprised at the hon. Member. Above all, I thought that as he purports to be a friend of the Welsh language he would have appreciated the decision that has been taken to make this substantial increase in the Government's contribution towards the publication of books in Wales. I consider his attitude today to be mean-minded and petty.

Reservoirs

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the water collected in Welsh reservoirs is used in England; and what is the daily gallonage involved.

Mr. George Thomas: As the hon. Member was told on 21st March, 1967, and 10th April, 1968, it is not practicable to give such figures for the new regulating reservoirs. These and the older impounding reservoirs from which water is taken directly into supply for use in England account at present for nearly 70 per cent. of the storage capacity of reservoirs in Wales. The average daily quantity taken into use from the older reservoirs in 1958 was 136 million gallons.—[Vol. 743, c. 236; Vol. 762, c. 286.]

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Government had not broken their promise, either given cynically or broken cynically, to establish a Welsh Water Board there would today be a safeguard against the depredations made on Welsh rural com-

munities, and Wales today would be receiving a substantial income of millions of pounds from the sale of this very rich national resource?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member must live in cloud-cuckoo-land. He is responsible to this House and to the people of Wales for not misleading the Welsh people. Water would still be required if he had his way. This Answer ought to satisfy any reasonable person.

Mr. Fred Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Italy the town of Milan extracts water from a river which subsequently flows into a Swiss canton and it pays the Swiss canton an indemnity for the loss of water it would otherwise have gained. Can he, on this analogy, envisage a situation in which Wales will be paying England? Can my right hon. Friend envisage a situation in which we shall have a kind of western range war between English local authorities and Wales over rights to water holes?

Mr. Thomas: Water is essential for life. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Not too much of it."] I confine myself to water. The United Kingdom is one, and the people of these islands will be in a sorry way if ever bigoted people try so to divide the United Kingdom that the essentials of life are withheld.

European Economic Community

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is submitting evidence to be included in Her Majesty's Government's analysis of the effects of entering the European Economic Community showing its probable industrial, economic and social consequences in Wales.

Mr. George Thomas: The Government will continue to take account of the implications for Wales and, indeed, for all parts of the United Kingdom, of British entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that the revelation made at the Crowther Commission's last sitting by a candid civil servant—that the Welsh Office has made no study at all of the possible effects on Wales of entry to the Common Market—will come as no


surprise and will be understood as another illustration of the fact that the Government here in London never consider the effects on Wales?

Mr. Thomas: I hate to disagree with the hon. Member, as he is well aware. All civil servants in the Welsh Office are candid at all times, but I must tell him that as a member of the Government I am of course involved in any economic study of the consequences of joining the European Economic Community. My first consideration is the interests of Wales.

Mr. Fred Evans: Can my right hon. Friend give similar information to that asked for in the Question as to the effects on Wales of a refusal by England to accord to a separate Wales the recognition that is asked for in the Question? Can he inform the House of what studies are at present being made by the Welsh Office of such possibilities on entry into the Common Market?

Mr. Thomas: We never cease from such studies.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: In view of the studies, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he considers the consequences for Welsh agriculture, for which he is responsible, would be if we were to enter the Common Market?

Mr. Thomas: Of course I am very conscious of my responsibilities along with those of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I can assure the House and the hon. Member that I am keeping in very close touch with my right hon. Friend on this matter.

Traffic Accidents (Sheep)

Mr. Probe: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many traffic accidents involving sheep were reported in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire during 1968.

Mr. George Thomas: 1,221; 909 in Glamorgan and 312 in Monmouthshire.

Mr. Probert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a growing and serious problem? Will he convey to the Government my thanks and appreciation for introducing legislation which will go quite a way to meet this situation?

Mr. Thomas: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I hope that the proposed legislation will have the effect which he has in mind. He may be interested to know that in 1968, in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, 25 per cent. of such accidents involved sheep, 70 per cent. involved dogs and 5 per cent. other animals.

Clean Air Act, 1966

Mr. Probert: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what effect the importation of English coals is having upon the policies of local authorities in South Wales in relation to the implementation of the Clean Air Act, 1966.

Mr. E. Rowlands: A few local authorities have indicated to my right hon. Friend concern about the effects of an increasing use of high volatile coal supplied to their areas by the National Coal Board: but he knows of no formal action they are proposing to take.

Mr. Probert: Is my hon. Friend aware that, apart from the anomaly of importing coal into an area which has many coal mines, there is also a serious anomaly with the importation of high volatile coal over short periods, as this is creating serious smoke problems for my local authorities?

Mr. Rowlands: We are aware of that. Welsh Office officials have had discussions with the National Coal Board and we are keeping in touch on this matter.

Road Improvement and Maintenance (Winter Programme)

Mr. Tudor Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what additional moneys have been allocated to each of the highway authorities in Wales as a winter programme for improvement and maintenance to be completed by 31st March, 1970.

Mr. George Thomas: With permission, I will publish this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Watkins: Would the Secretary of State kindly look up the figure for Brecon-shire and Radnorshire? Will he be able to increase the amount because of possible redundancies in Breconshire?

Mr. Thomas: I always try to help my hon. Friend because he is so reasonable. I must point out that the amounts allocated to Breconshire and Radnorshire for road works this year represent the same percentage of the total available for roads as last year, namely 4 per cent.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the cuts-back in road maintenance over the past few years have had a very great effect upon the standards of roads in all counties of Wales? Why is it that he could not

Wales


Special Winter Programme 1969–70


Principal and Non-principal Roads


Highway Authority





Improvements
Maintenance
Totals


County Councils





£
£
£


Anglesey
…
…
…
…
…
37,500
22,500
60,000


Breconshire
…
…
…
…
…
25,000
13,000
38,000


Cardiganshire
…
…
…
…
…
—
33,250
33,250


Carmarthenshire
…
…
…
…
…
25,500
60,470
85,970


Caernarvonshire
…
…
…
…
…
105,000
5,000
110,000


Denbighshire
…
…
…
…
…
56,600
4,800
61,400


Flintshire
…
…
…
…
…
—
28,500
28,500


Glamorgan
…
…
…
…
…
55,025
46,485
101,510


Merioneth
…
…
…
…
…
31,000
39,000
70,000


Monmouthshire
…
…
…
…
…
18,900
57,100
76,000


Montgomeryshire
…
…
…
…
…
—
22,830
22,830


Pembrokeshire
…
…
…
…
…
33,150
25,650
58,800


Radnorshire
…
…
…
…
…
34,500
1,500
36,000


County Borough Councils










Merthyr Tydfil
…
…
…
…
…
30,000
—
30,000


Swansea
…
…
…
…
…
37,500
—
37,500






Totals
…
489,675
360,085
849,760

Amounts payable to claiming authorities have been included in the figures for the appropriate Counters.

The full cost of these works will be borne by my Department.

Disabled People (Access to Public Buildings)

Mr. Alec Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the facilities provided for disabled people using wheelchairs to gain admission to public buildings under his control in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): It is not always easy to adapt existing buildings to take wheelchairs but my right hon. Friend would like all public authorities to do what they can. When planning new buildings the needs of the disabled should always be taken into account.
I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy of advice on this matter issued by the

give us the figures today, including the total figure, instead of putting it in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman must either have a poor memory or a thick skin to suggest that money spent on road maintenance in Wales is inadequate. Let him look at what his party spent when in power and then look at what we spent. We are talking now about a winter works programme, and it is very different.

Following is the information:

Department some time ago to local authorities in Wales.

Mr. Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am very pleased with that answer, because many of us on this side of the House receive numerous complaints from various bodies in Wales complaining about the difficulties which these unfortunate people have?

Mrs. White: Might I suggest to my hon. Friend, and to other hon. Members, that they do what I have done as a constituency Member, and write to all local authorities in their constituency, drawing their attention to this need?

Derelict Land

Mr. Alec Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied


with the rate of progress of clearing derelict land in Wales; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. George Thomas: Good progress is being made. Fifty-eight schemes for grant involving nearly 1,400 acres have been approved. Their cost is over £3 million and grant of about £2,250,000 has been approved. A total of 35 schemes have been completed and 500 acres of land reclaimed. A further 100 schemes are at various stages of consideration.

Mr. Jones: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging reply, and while trusting that progress will continue, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that the National Coal Board and British Rail are doing all they should be doing to clear up their abandoned sites?

Mr. Thomas: I am not a person easily satisfied. I will look into the matters my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Gower: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply may I ask him whether, with the run-down of much of the coal industry and the need for new industry in the South Wales valleys, he might contemplate giving this particular need an even higher priority in future? Is he aware that this might be one of the best ways to improve the prospects of the South Wales area?

Mr. Thomas: The record of Her Majesty's Government with regard to derelict land unit activities in Wales is one of spectacular success. It is outstanding how much has been achieved. If we can go faster we will.

Housing (Newtown)

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales why there has been a delay in providing the Newtown Development Corporation with the necessary funds for proceeding with its housing plans.

Mrs. White: The Development Corporation's first housing contract was approved on 23rd October, 1969. The delay was due mainly to the need to examine closely the design and layout of the development, the high cost and the overall financial viability of the project.

Mr. Hooson: Is the hon. Lady aware that there are three completed factories in Newtown but no houses for the workers in those factories? Is she further aware that Treasury delay in approving the money has caused embarrassment?

Mrs. White: It is expected that the first 10 houses in the contract will be ready for occupation by the end of March and the balance will be completed before the autumn. The second phase can then begin. I am aware of the local apprehensions, but I think the programme will meet the need.

Mr. William Edwards: Would my hon. Friend agree that everyone would have been more assured of the viability of the housing programme in this area had the Member for Parliament for the area supported the establishment of the development corporation in his own constituency?

Mrs. White: There are other reasons why one regrets the lack of support by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). I could not honestly say that the housing programme was really affected by his attitude, one way or another.

Mr. Hooson: On a point of order. Is it correct for the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) deliberately to misrepresent my views on this? As the Secretary of State knows, I supported the setting up of the Newtown Development Corporation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was natural for the hon. and learned Gentleman to rise, but it is not a point of order.

Welsh Accounts

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps have been taken to publish Welsh Accounts on the lines of the Scottish Accounts recently published; and when their publication can be expected.

Mr. George Thomas: It is intended to prepare Welsh Accounts on the lines of those recently published for Scotland. The complex work involved will be done as quickly as possible but I cannot say at this stage when the results will be published.

Mr. Hooson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great interest taken in


Wales about the publication of the Scottish Accounts? May we expect the Welsh Accounts to be published early in the new year?

Mr. Thomas: It took a long time and a lot of work to get those Scottish Accounts. The accounts are very complex and there are certain factors which it is difficult to assess. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that no one is waiting more anxiously for these figures than I am.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: When these Welsh Accounts are published will my right hon. Friend consider, with the authorities of the House, if the Welsh Estimates can be considered in the Welsh Grand Committee?

Mr. Thomas: This is a very useful suggestion, which I will examine carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Bird Seed (Tax)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give consideration to reducing tax on bird seed.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. William Rodgers): I do not think that a concession for bird seed could be justified as the tax applies to prepared pet foods generally.

Mr. Dalyell: Although this is not the most momentous issue before Treasury Ministers, could it be borne in mind that, basically, this tax affects the old and the lonely, and might well, therefore, be taken seriously when thought is given to the build-up of the Budget?

Mr. Rodgers: I respect the pertinacity with which my hon. Friend has pursued this matter. I entirely agree when he says that among those who keep birds there are many old people, but, although I sympathise, this could be said in regard to other pets as well.

Mr. Marten: As vice-president of the Banbury Cage Birds Society, may I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter? Will he give to the elderly some such concession as his hon. Friend mentioned?

Mr. Rodgers: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his high office, and I note what he says, but the problem is difficult and many other owners of pets are similarly affected.

Inland Revenue, East Kilbride (Staff Recruitment)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he is doing to recruit qualified staff to the Inland Revenue, in the light of delays at tax offices such as East Kilbride.

Mr. William Rodgers: There have been some transitional problems at East Kilbride, where there have been shortages, particularly of experienced staff. But vigorous local recruitment should mean that numbers will be up to the authorised complement by the end of the year.

Mr. Dalyell: What has been learnt for the future from what has happened at East Kilbride in relation to the transfer from orthodox offices to a computer system? What has been learnt from these difficulties?

Mr. Rodgers: We foresaw that there would probably be some difficulty in obtaining experienced staff; to ensure that the job is properly done, they have to undergo some training. The whole experience will be evaluated, and what we have learned will be used on similar comparable occasions.

Mrs. Ewing: In his deliberations, will the Minister recognise that taxpayers like to raise their queries at the local office? Is he aware that many of my constituents have to take time off from work to travel to the East Kilbride Inland Revenue office to raise their queries, and will he give an assurance that no further centralisation of this kind will take place?

Mr. Rodgers: The main concern of taxpayers is that business shall be dealt with effectively and efficiently. We have to recognise not only local preferences and requirements but the wish of the general body of taxpayers to have the job done effectively at the least possible cost.

Sterling

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with a view to ending the rôle of


sterling as a reserve currency; and if he will make a statement.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): My right hon. Friend has had no discussions on this topic.

Mr. Barnett: Does it remain the Chancellor's intention to end all aspects of Britain's sterling reserve role? Has he had discussions, and has he come to any conclusion about any possible effect which this would have on invisible earnings, or does he believe that it would have no effect at all?

Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend has not expressed the Chancellor's position fully or correctly. My right hon. Friend's position is that he would be content to see a reduction in this role in the long term, provided that two conditions were satisfied: first, that the interests of sterling holders were fully protected, and second, that the needs of world liquidity were protected.

Government Contracts (Standard Conditions)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellorof the Exchequer if he will ensure that all Government contracts have a clausein them that will insist that no discrimination on racial or any other grounds has been under taken by the contractor with regard to employment.

Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend's reply of 22nd October to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythen-shawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), the standard conditions of Government contracts have been amended to require contractors to conform to the provisions of the Race Relations Act, 1968, relating to discrimination in employment.—[Vol. 783, c. 296–7.]

Added-vaiue Tax

Mr. Marten: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the rise in prices resulting from the adoption by Great Britain of the added-value tax in line with that of the Common Market countries.

Mr. Diamond: That would depend on the rates and coverage of the tax.

Mr. Marten: Nevertheless, recalling the speech of the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) in 1967, will the Chief Secretary reaffirm what was implied in that statement, namely, that if we join the Common Market the Government will then accept the value-added tax or something similar?

Mr. Diamond: In case I have not already pointed this out to the hon. Gentleman, I apologise for not having done so, and I take this opportunity to refer him to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when he dealt with this matter absolutely fully.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. Friend said that it would depend upon the value-added tax itself. Has he no idea how much it is, either actually or on average, in the Common Market countries? Could he not work on that basis and give us an idea?

Mr. Diamond: No, Sir. I am always anxious to be as helpful to the House as I can, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that he might just as well ask me what would be produced by an income tax, a selective employment tax or any other tax he cared to name. It depends entirely on the rates and the coverage, as I have indicated.

Wealth Tax (Scotland)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the light of the research involved in the publication "A Scottish Budget", he will give the latest available estimates for the yield of a uniform 1 per cent., 2 per cent., 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. wealth tax on accumulated wealth of £20,000 or over for Scotland.

Mr. William Rodgers: On the basis of present-day values, the yield of such a tax is estimated at £20 million, £40 million, £60 million and £80 million, respectively.

Mr. Eadie: Does my hon. Friend realise that many workpeople in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom consider that the present method of taxation falls unfairly, and will he agree that a wealth tax would be a much fairer method of taxation than, for example, S.E.T. or a value-added tax?

Mr. Rodgers: I understand exactly what my hon. Friend says, but I do not draw the conclusions which he draws about the present system. I can give no commitment at the moment about a wealth tax.

Mrs. Ewing: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the "Scottish Budget" did not throw any light on this matter, and his answer has nothing to do with the "Scottish Budget", which left us in complete darkness about vital matters such as gross national product, exports and imports, the cost of living index, and the total amount of tax collected relating to Scotland?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not agree, and I am puzzled at the hon. Lady's inability to understand and see the importance of that document.

Import Deposits Scheme

Mr. Eadie: asked the Chancellor of Exchequer what representations he has had from the paper industry as a consequence of his recent announcement on the import deposits scheme; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. William Rodgers: None, Sir.

Mr. Eadie: The paper industry is going through a difficult period, not of its own making. In the circumstances, does not my hon. Friend consider that schemes should be introduced which could be of assistance rather than a hindrance to the paper industry?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend shows a proper concern, but I am afraid that nothing he has said or that we know about the industry would make us feel that there should be any changes as regards import deposits.

Exchange Control

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take on the collusion between Swiss banks and United Kingdom citizens for the purpose of evading exchange control, details of which have been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: I have nothing at present to add to what I said in the Adjournment debate on 13th November. —[Vol 791, c. 743–54.]

Mr. Barnett: Are the reports accurate which seem to indicate that the Swiss authorities told Sir Leslie O'Brien, in the politest Swiss banking terms, that they neither would nor could do anything about it?

Mr. Rodgers: I did not read the reports in that spirit, and, had I done so, I should not necessarily have thought them reliable. The Governor spoke to his Swiss opposite number, as I said he intended to do, and I think that his remarks were listened to sympathetically.

Strikes (Income Tax Refunds)

Mr. Maddan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of income tax which has been refunded consequent upon loss of earnings due to strikes, both official and unofficial, during any recent convenient 12-month period.

Mr. Diamond: This information is not available.

Mr. Maddan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is an important item in relation to our national finances, and is it not important also when set alongside social security payments which arise from strikes? Should not the Government keep track of it?

Mr. Diamond: It is important, but the hon. Gentleman does not fully understand the method by which pay-as-you-earn taxation is operated. The refunds to which he refers are mostly made by employers in the ordinary course of events, and it is impossible for the Government, unless they obtain a return from every employer of every reason for each repayment of tax, to give the information for which he asks.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: But does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that one of the anxieties which people have is that the ordinary person, if he becomes entitled to a refund, may have to wait many weeks, or sometimes months, while in these cases special arrangements are made? Will he comment on that?

Mr. Diamond: Yes, with pleasure. The right hon. Gentleman is not accurate in what he says. In the ordinary course of pay-as-you-earn, there is no distinction made in the rate of repayment by the


employer whether the employee's entitlement to repayment arises because he is on strike, because his wife has had a baby, because he has got married, or whatever the reason may be.

Mr. Howie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whenever people have overpaid tax, they are fully entitled, even if they be ordinary working men, to a refund?

Mr. Diamond: I agree, and that matter is not even in question.

Superannuation (Income Tax)

Mr. Marks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax reliefs the Inland Revenue allow on contributions to private and public service superannuation schemes, on National Insurance contributions, and on lump sums and pensions paid under all schemes.

Mr. William Rodgers: Briefly, contributions by employees to approved occupational superannuation schemes are allowable deductions to the extent that the scheme provides pensions, or if the scheme is a statutory one. National Insurance contributions do not rank for relief. Lump sums payable out of approved schemes are not taxable on the recipient. All pensions are taxable as earned income.

Mr. Marks: Does the Minister not agree that there is an anomaly in that people contracting out of the National Insurance scheme gain further tax relief? Will he re-examine this with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services when considering the new and present schemes? Is he further aware that many pensioners whose total income from superannuation and National Insurance pensions is only slightly above the supplementary benefit level have lost much of their recent 10s. pension increase because of taxation? Will he consider raising the marginal relief allowance for old people to obviate that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long supplementary questions cut out other Questions.

Mr. Rodgers: The second part of the supplementary question raises much larger issues which cannot be effectively commented on today. Answering the first question, on the face of it, it may be

argued, there is some anomaly, but there are justifications for it. I will also draw my hon. Friend's attention to the review of the taxation treatment of superannuation arrangements which is at present being made.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is the Minister aware that self-employed persons are allowed no lump sum relief because they are not allowed to draw any of their pension as a lump sum? Will he include that anomaly in the review?

Mr. Rodgers: It is certainly a point which we should bear in mind.

Nationalised Industries and Local Authorities (Foreign Borrowing)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total of foreign borrowing by the nationalised industries to 1st November or the latest convenient date, and that of local government authorities, which he has authorised; and how much of this is in deutsche marks.

Mr. Diamond: To 1st November nationalised industries have borrowed about £88 million abroad and one local authority about £5 million. Some £64 million is in Deutsche marks.

Mr. Ridsdale: When has this debt, which totals £100 million, to be repaid? How much has the total interest to be paid been altered by the revaluation of the Deutsche mark?

Mr. Diamond: The total additional cost has already been given in an answer, but I can repeat that the additional cost to the public sector is broadly equal to the additional benefit accruing from the reduction in the rate of interest.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the burden which this will place on our overseas invisible account in the future? Will he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer look into the whole question of public corporation and local authority borrowing which at the moment amounts to £2,000 million a year?

Mr. Diamond: I have already explained that the two items are broadly in balance. The net result, therefore, is that we have replaced short-term borrowing with long-term borrowing of the


same amount, and that surely is advantageous.

Mr. Alison: Does the Chief Secretary appreciate that this form of borrowing has the result of increasing the domestic money supply? Is this held to be an advantage or a disadvantage of the scheme?

Mr. Diamond: It is one of the elements of the scheme which has been fully taken into account. Overall the scheme was thought to be, and has proved to be, advantageous.

Mr. Barnett: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is nothing like the burden which has arisen from the net capital outflow which has restricted our economic growth over the years?

Mr. Diamond: I will gladly bear in mind anything my hon. Friend puts to me

Monetary Policy

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the general effects of the Government's monetary policy; and whether he will now dismantle certain selective methods of monetary restraint, including the hire-purchase regulations and the limits on lending by the joint stock banks.

Mr. Diamond: My present judgment is that monetary policy is achieving a degree of overall credit restraint which is appropriate to our current situation. Relaxation would be premature at this stage; the answer to the second part of the Question is, therefore, "No".

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that sort of answer confirms the belief that there is a great deal of complacency in the Treasury at the present state of liquidity in British industry? Is he aware that the November edition of Financial Statistics shows that there has been a fall in liquidity in British industry of about £70 million to £80 million? Is he aware that that will have considerable consequences for the level of industrial investment?

Mr. Diamond: There is no question of complacency. This matter is under continual review. I am well aware of the feelings of industry. I am also aware of

the estimates of investment. They are broadly satisfactory.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the limit on lending by the joint stock banks gives certain advantages to other financial institutions? What plan has he for ending that discrepancy?

Mr. Diamond: That is a separate matter. This matter is under continual review and we shall keep it under review again when we get the November returns from the banks. Beyond that I do not think I can answer my hon. Friend more specifically.

HERR BRANDT (VISIT)

Q.1. Mr. Henig: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite Herr Brandt to make an official visit to Great Britain.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have invited the German Chancellor to pay an official visit on a mutually convenient date in the first half of next year and Herr Brandt has accepted.

Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members will be delighted to hear that news? Will he convey to Herr Brandt when he comes here the warmest congratulations of many in the House at least that a Socialist is once more Chancellor of Western Germany? Would the time be appropriate when Herr Brandt visits this country to consider the possibilty of some kind of Anglo-German declaration of friendship, perhaps along the lines of the Franco-German declaration a few years ago?

The Prime Minister: While Herr Brandt is a very old personal friend of mine, my relations with him are strictly official. What I welcome, and what the whole House, regardless of party, welcomes, is that the Chancellor of Germany is a very good friend of this country, and in our discussions we shall start from that position. I was asked about a declaration. That can be considered at the right time. There was a very important declaration between the previous Chancellor and myself last February about the widening of the. Common Market. If Herr Brandt and I mutually felt that any declaration would help our common purpose, no doubt we could make one.

PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (MEETING)

Q.2. Mr. Henig: asked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for an early meeting with President Pompidou.

The Prime Minister: Although there are no plans at present, I look forward to meeting President Pompidou before too long.

Mr. Henig: May I express the hope that this meeting will not be further delayed? In view of reports of a change of attitude in France about British entry into the Common Market, does not my right hon. Friend think it now time for frank and full discussions with President Pompidou about the major issues involved?

The Prime Minister: In this case it is a meeting with a Head of State, not a Head of Government. I think that my hon. Friend will feel, on reflection—as I am sure it is President Pompidou's feeling— that these are matters first for discussion within the Six. President Pompidou and other Heads of State or Heads of Government will be meeting early in December for summit talks. It is right to see how those go before jumping to any premature conclusions.

Mr. Tapsell: Does the Prime Minister accept that if he and President Pompidou cannot agree on anything else, at least they have one thing in common: they have both presided over the devaluation of their national currencies?

The Prime Minister: In view of what he said, I am not sure that the hon. Member's words, which I think are aimed more at me than at President Pompidou, are designed to help relations with France. There are other things in common. Having been Prime Minister for many years, President Pompidou has just received the acclamation of his country for a further period of office.

Mr. Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to congratulate both President Pompidou and Herr Brandt on the fact that both France and Germany are devoting more than 1 per cent. of their gross national product to overseas aid? How soon does he expect it to be before he is in a position to receive similar congratulations?

The Prime Minister: I welcome my right hon. Friend's question, although no one knows the figures as well as he does. He used to supply me with them. He also knows that in the international league table, which I quoted recently, Britain stands very high indeed. I understand that Germany has intimated that she intends to increase her programme by a very substantial percentage. We have nothing to be ashamed of in this country. As for our future programme in relation to the U.N.C.T.A.D. or Pearson 1 per cent., I have already told the House that we expect to be able to make a statement to the House in a very short time.

HORTICULTURAL IMPORT CONTROL

Mr. John Wells: asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer all responsibility for horticultural import control from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Agriculture.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Wells: Is the Prime Minister aware that British growers have a fundamental distrust of the Board of Trade and feel that it has frequently betrayed them? Will he take active steps to bring the attention of the Board of Trade to the great import saving which could be achieved by British horticulture?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman is the only hon. Gentleman ever to have chewed a horticultural product in the House of Commons. Obviously, this matter has had to be considered from time to time. We take the same view as our predecessors did— that control over international trade in this and other products should rest with the Board of Trade, not with the Department concerned with the sponsoring of production in this country. However, the hon. Gentleman, who has made his position very clear, will know how much has been done to help British horticulture.

Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that whoever is responsible for the operation of Government policy in these maters will operate it mainly in the interests of the British consumer?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has responsibility for the general level of prices and the interests of consumers and a reasonable concern for seeing that British producers get a fair crack of the whip, but not to be protective against others who might produce more efficiently. In this case, horticulture, I think that he holds the balance very fairly.

Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that I am sure that import control should rest with the Board of Trade, so long as the Board of Trade is responsible for overseas trade affairs? However, would he not agree from his own experience that for a long period there has been a problem of the time it takes to implement anti-dumping regulations and that they are often ineffective because the season for the horticultural product is over by the time action is taken? Is he aware that some of us have tried to think of ways in which this difficulty could be overcome? Might we not have a sort of prima facie decision that there is dumping so that action could be taken by the Board of Trade which would then have time to explore the situation and reach a final conclusion? Would not this speed up the whole process and prevent it from being ineffective?

The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself to this matter when he was President of the Board of Trade, as have my right hon. Friends. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not fully taken into account the effects of the 1968 Act which empowers the President of the Board of Trade to take provisional anti-dumping action, to take prompt action in the prima facie case when, as the right hon. Gentleman suggest, for seasonal or other reasons it is urgent that action should be taken and then to have the necessary inquiries afterwards. In other words, what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting we have legislative powers to ensure.

PRIME MINISTER OF SOUTH AFRICA (CONSULTATIONS)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he has recently held with the Prime Minister of South Africa.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Winnick: Would the Prime Minister consider telling the Prime Minister of South Africa of the contempt felt here about the way in which South Africa not only chooses its sporting teams on a colour basis, but tries to dictate to foreign sports teams that this shall be done? In view of this, would he not agree that the M.C.C. should seriously consider cancelling its invitation to the South Africans next year?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would help if I made further comments on this matter. The attitude of most people in this country has been made clear, and it was made clear last year over the d'Oliveira incident when the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) —I am sorry that he is not present— produced the wrong answer in his diplomatic negotiations; but the House as a whole agreed that it was wrong for us to be told whom we could have in our British national teams. I should not like to comment further, because I know that my hon. Friend is trying to make me comment about the Maoris about which there have been a number of statements —indeed, the latest seems rather better than the earlier statements.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not clear, despite such incidents as the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, that we still retain full use of the naval base at Simonstown?

The Prime Minister: There has been no change in that position for many years, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Dickens: Will the Prime Minister take up with Pretoria the question of the use of South African police and military personnel in Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: This matter has been fully represented, both in informal talks with the regime in Rhodesia—I do not think that it is particularly keen to have these police in Rhodesia—and with the South African Government. Their use is illegal.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Prime Minister take into account the fact that we have a considerable balance of trade with South Africa? Will he also bear in mind that, as a result of two speeches


by two junior Ministers recently, a constituent of mine has lost a large order in South Africa which could have resulted in the employment of people in the North-West of England?

The Prime Minister: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the fact that not only have our exports to South Africa substantially increased, but we have a substantial balance of trade with South Africa. For more than five years we heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite the allegation that our decision to adhere to the United Nations resolution, for which right hon. Gentlemen opposite voted, would destroy our ability to maintain trade in non-arms. I am glad to feel that trade has increased so rapidly.

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will propose legislation to provide for a national referendum on entry into the Common Market once the terms are known.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: But as a form of referendum is already held in Wales and Scotland, should we in England not get used to having referenda, as they are held in the Common Market? Indeed, the present negotiations arose because of a referendum in France. As the Prime Minister has declared that this would be a historic occasion which would lead to a surrender of sovereignty, and as there is no getting out of the Treaty of Rome, is not a referendum the best way in which the public could express its anxieties?

The Prime Minister: It is contrary to our traditions in this country. Even in 1962, when the hon. Gentleman may well have been a member of the then Government, for reasons which must have seemed good to the then Prime Minister, the then Prime Minister refused a suggestion from his own side for a referendum on the Common Market, even though it had not been an election issue. If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about it, I wonder why he did not resign on that occasion.

Mr. Marten: I was not a member of the Government then.

The Prime Minister: He joined it shortly afterwards in the light of that reply. It is significant that on 30th January, 1962, the hon. Gentleman who put a Question from the Conservative side referred to referenda on Sunday drinking in Wales and got slapped down by the then Prime Minister for suggesting that it should be done on the Common Market.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: As Britain's entry into the Common Market would represent the biggest constitutional step which has been taken since perhaps the Bill of Rights in 1832, or perhaps an even bigger constitutional issue, does not my right hon. Friend think that the people of Great Britain should have an opportunity of expressing their views?

The Prime Minister: Hon. Members on either side of the House do not usually feel that referenda are a way in which to conduct our public affairs. I am sure that a referendum would give 100 per cent. support for increasing expenditure on every item. It would give 100 per cent. support for abolishing income tax.

Sir G. Nabarro: What a splendid idea!

The Prime Minister: That was what I hoped to imply. It is not a way in which we can do business. These are matters on which hon. Members are elected to the House and they have been free to express their opinions, as they were in the debates in the House, and as they will be again when we are offered terms for joining the Common Market.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination achieved as a result of the reorganisation of Government Departments responsible for problems of regional development; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends work closely together on these matters.

Mr. Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government give top priority to helping areas such as North-East Lancashire which have now been singled out for massive Government aid? Welcome though this aid is in


North-East Lancashire, we should like to feel that the effects will be felt soon by the population.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Second Reading of the Local Employment Bill was accepted by the House without a Division and is now being examined in Committee. It is to implement the announcement of my right hon. Friend the then Economic Secretary earlier this year. I think that the whole House will feel that first priority must be given still to development areas, particularly to areas of colliery closures and other areas which are difficult. However, we are now in a position to give more help to the intermediate areas.

Mr. Emery: Does the Prime Minister realise that the South-West considers that it is absolutely bottom in any thoughts by the Government, both as regards transport and broadcasting? We are being left way behind. What does the Prime Minister intend to do to correct this?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can address questions on transport and broadcasting to the appropriate Ministers responsible. He is totally wrong about what has been done about employment in the South-West, in view of the conferment of development area status for part of the South-West and the recent inclusion of Plymouth in the area to receive help under the intermediate area programme.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Stonehouse.

LOCAL RADIO STATIONS

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. John Stonehouse): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now make a statement about the development of local radio.
I have authorised the B.B.C. to establish local radio stations at Birmingham, Blackburn, Bristol, Chatham—to serve the Medway towns—Derby, Hull—to serve Humberside—London, Manchester, Middlesbrough—to serve Tees-side— Newcastle—to serve Tyneside—Oxford and Southampton—to serve the area surrounding the Solent.
The B.B.C. estimates that the 12 new stations, together with the eight already in existence, will by 1971 have brought about 70 per cent. of the population of England within the range of local radio.
As the House knows, 20 more stations, including stations in Scotland and Wales, bringing the total to 40, will follow over the subsequent four years. Locations for these stations have not yet been chosen, but I will inform the House as soon as I decide on the next stage in this development.
The service will, like the other operations of the B.B.C, be financed essentially from the licence income, the net increase of which from April, 1971, will enable the B.B.C. to meet this and its further commitments.

Mr. Bryan: How does the Minister defend the position in which a shortage of funds is driving the B.B.C. to cut its serious programme output and to cut out regional broadcasting whilst millions of pounds are to be spent on local radio stations which could be provided by commercial means? Is he aware that the Director-General of the B.B.C. categorically stated that the Government made the increase in the licence fee conditional on the B.B.C.'s taking on local radio? Is not blackmail of this sort a gross infringement of the independence of the B.B.C.?

Mr. Stonehouse: The House will be aware that the local radio experiment with the eight existing stations has been regarded as a general success. I have been in touch with the hon. Members representing the constituencies concerned, and their overwhelming view was that these stations had meant a very great addition to the community activities in those towns. The request for the local radio development came from the B.B.C, which wished it to be extended because of that success. There is no question of its being imposed upon the B.B.C.
As regards the development of commercial radio, the House knows only too well the oft expressed view of the hon. Gentleman, but his view that commercial radio financed by advertising would be a valuable development of broadcasting in Britain is not shared by the overwhelming majority of the public.

Mr. James Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend warmly for coming to the


House today 24 hours after our tetchy exchanges yesterday, and including Hum-berside and Hull in his list of 12. Will he confirm that the station will be powerful enough to include in its range Grimsby and Immingham, because we wish to unite both banks of the Humber?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am in touch with the B.B.C. about the range to be established in Hull, and I am sure that the corporation will take note of that request.

Dr. Winstanley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this premature and expensive announcement closes the door on other interesting possibilities and pre-empts decisions in other aspects of broadcasting policy which are at present the subject of controversy? Would it not have been better to have allowed the House to debate this whole matter before telling us what had been decided?

Mr. Stonehouse: The House debated this subject in July. I purposely did not make decisions until that debate had taken place and I had had a chance to gauge the view of the House. Decisions must be made at some time, and it is clear that there is an overwhelming desire that local radio should be developed. I think that the time to get on with it is now and that all the hon. Members whose constituencies are being affected by this development will welcome it as well as their constituents.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very great concern on both sides of the House, outside the House, and among the staffs of the B.B.C, particularly in the regions, about the proposals that he is putting forward? Is he aware that his proposals fall far short of the recommendations of the Pilkington Committee and that on this side at least there is very great opposition to his suggestion that licence fees should be increased until he has done the job of collecting the money that is already due? Therefore, will he give the House an opportunity at the earliest possible date to debate all these problems before any further action is taken?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every long question cuts out another question.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the

House will take note of the request for a debate. I would welcome a chance to debate this question.
The counter-evasion campaign has got off to a very good start and there is no doubt that the number of evaders is being reduced.
I am aware that sections of the staff of the B.B.C. have been concerned about the revised plans, and I am satisfied that as the B.B.C. goes out to explain the plans in more detail, particularly in relation to the announcement I have made today, many of the fears which have been expressed will subside.

Mr. Kershaw: What will be the range of these stations, in particular that of the station at Bristol?

Mr. Stonehouse: The B.B.C. is now examining the question of the range in each case. I would not wish to give the exact range off the cuff.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I welcome the decentralisation involved in the extension of local radio, but is my right hon. Friend aware that in the West Riding and in Bradford there will be deep disappointment that there is no proposal either for the setting up of a station in Bradford or for an increase in the Radio Leeds network to cover the West Riding? When does my right hon. Friend propose to make a decision on either of these questions?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am well aware that there are other parts of the country where there are requests for facilities to be established. I hope to be able to make announcements about the location of the further 20 stations in due course.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The Minister will be aware that I have written him a long letter saying that we are all very proud of Radio Stoke, but that we cannot hear it, because the number of sets being bought which make it audible is not increasing. The technical point of the availability of the programme should be discussed by the House. Though people like the station, they do not get it, so they do not listen to it.

Mr. Stonehouse: I presume that the reference is to the question of local radio being broadcast on V.H.F. I am considering whether medium-range frequencies can be used.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on making his announcement by way of a statement rather than confusing the whole issue in an answer to a Written Question? There is, however, little else in his statement on which I can congratulate him. Most of us on this side of the House who have no time for commercial radio view with grave alarm the current reduction in the quality of B.B.C. programmes. Would my right hon. Friend therefore reaffirm that he is ready to have a debate on Motion 42 on the Order Paper, which calls for a Select Committee on broadcasting before a further reduction takes place?

Mr. Stonehouse: As I said earlier, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House notes these requests. I am satisfied that the B.B.C. has amended its future plans in the light of the debates on its proposals since they were put out in July.

Mr. Peyton: The Minister will have informed himself of the cost. Will he now inform the House?

Mr. Stonehouse: The cost of developing these particular stations will be £750,000—[HON. MEMBERS: "Each."] No—for the 12. It will cost about £60,000 each to establish them and the annual running cost will be up to £100,000 each.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he has made today is an announcement about local radio, unlike hon. Gentlemen opposite with their policy which makes a threat towards local radio? Would he agree that many local newspaper proprietors all over the country will welcome his announcement in that it removes a threat to local newspapers?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure—and this is borne out in a poll conducted by the Daily Express some weeks ago—that people do not want advertising on sound radio and, therefore, will welcome the fact that their local community radio will be run on the lines which I have announced.

Mr. Monro: Would the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the whole of Scotland and North-West England can receive B.B.C.2 before money is spent on local radio?

Mr. Stonehouse: The extension of B.B.C. 2 is going on apace; but I do not think that we should get that subject confused with this one.

Mr. Mayhew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in his defence and development of public service broadcasting he is widely supported on this side of the House and by public opinion, especially if he continues to resist a campaign directed against public broadcasting and the B.B.C. which is widely supported by vested interests and by politicians who should know better?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful for that expression of view. I am sure that it represents the overwhelming view outside the House. People are very appreciative of the service which the B.B.C. has provided and want their local radio stations to be run in the same way and not to be sold out to commercial interests who undoubtedly would reduce standards.

Mr. Heath: Is the Postmaster-General aware that he has not answered the basic question? The prime responsibility of the B.B.C. is its national programmes of the highest possible standard and its regional programmes. In this country we have a double system—a public system, which should be of the highest quality, and a commercial system. Both have inspired each to higher qualities. Why is the B.B.C. being allowed to damage its prime responsibilities in order to go into this other field which can perfectly well be satisfied by commercial radio?

Mr. Stonehouse: May I point out gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the Postmaster-General disappeared on 1st October last?
With regard to the question of advertising on commercial radio, I think that it is agreed that if we had commercial radio developed on these lines it would have an unfortunate effect on the Press in those localities and would tend to reduce standards. There is absolutely no reason why the B.B.C. should not be able to take on this responsibility as well as all the other programmes which it broadcasts. The experiment conducted in the eight stations has, I think, shown that the B.B.C. is the best authority to continue this development.

Mr. Wallace: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that adequate V.H.F. frequencies are available and that there will be no interference whatever with amateur radio wavebands?

Mr. Stonehouse: I can give that assurance.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the poll to which he has referred also showed that the majority of people wanted local radio to be run by commercial interests? Does not his statement show an arrogant disregard of the concern expressed inside and outside the B.B.C. about the Corporation's future plans?

Mr. Stonehouse: I know that some concern has been expressed, particularly by some of the staffs involved, and I have had representations made to me. But I am satisfied that the overwhelming view will be that, as the B.B.C. explains its plans, this is the best way for the B.B.C. to continue its public service responsibilities within the means of finance made available for it.

Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservative proposals for commercial radio would have more than an unfortunate effect on local Press —that they would destroy many local weekly newspapers which are essential forums for local democracy? Can he give a positive assurance that he will remain firm in his opposition to such proposals? Is he aware that his announcement today will be greeted with great applause by newspapermen throughout the land?

Mr. Stonehouse: My hon. Friend, on this question, is, of course, absolutely right. I can give him the assurance that, having examined this question very carefully during the last 12 months and consulted all those who have been concerned with it, I am satisfied that the decision at which we have arrived is best.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is it not premature to make this statement before a decision has been reached about whether V.H.F. alone or also medium wave will be used? Will not this decision have a great impact on the cost and the coverage?

Mr. Stonehouse: The medium wave frequency question is complicated, particularly as medium waves used at night time can cause interference with reception in Europe generally. This is something which must be handled with care. We are now examining it to see how many of the stations can be put on medium wave as well as on V.H.F.

Mr. Ron Lewis: As Cumberland is not included in these proposals, and since it will be some time before we get B.B.C.2 and colour television, would my right hon. Friend consider reducing the licence fee for my constituents?

Mr. Stonehouse: That problem is often raised with me by Members who represent constituencies in, for instance, Scotland, which cannot receive all the programmes put out on television. I do not think that it would be appropriate to attempt to reduce the fee in the way suggested. Cumberland will, of course, be among those considered in the next batch of stations.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Why does not the Minister consider compromising over this matter? Why not hand over the erection of half of these stations to commercial undertakings? Then, instead of having a monopoly, there would be competition and, as a result, better programmes.

Mr. Stonehouse: I would not have said that competition in this field would improve programmes. What I am axious to achieve is the setting up in each of the towns I have referred to of local community stations which will give an opportunity to local groups to broadcast and for local news to be broadcast. I am not satisfied that if these stations were given to commercial interests these opportunities would arise, because the interest of commercial broadcasters would be to maximise broadcasting at the lowest cost rather than to provide a community service. I am sure that this is the best way to do it.

Mr. Golding: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the extension of local radio will be very welcome to some of us? Is he also aware that economies could be made by putting radio transmission under the control of one authority, namely, the Post Office Corporation, rather than


having it divided as at present between the B.B.C. and the Post Office?

Mr. Stonehouse: No, Sir, I am satisfied that co-operation between the Post Office and the B.B.C, with control within the B.B.C, is the best way to approach this problem.

Mr. Noble: Will the Minister tell me how I am to explain to my constituents that the B.B.C. has this money to spend elsewhere but has no money to spend on my constituents, many of whom get no television and practically no radio reception?

Mr. Stonehouse: I recognise that there is a problem in the remoter parts of Scotland and in Wales. The regional programmes for Scotland will, of course, continue, and there will be an opportunity for local radio stations to be established there in the next batch that I will announce in due course.

Mr. English: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, however they might otherwise differ, most hon. Members will welcome an extension of local radio and his consideration of the use of medum-wave frequencies for such local radio? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present system of regions in the B.B.C, with the Midland Region stretching from the borders of Wales to the coast of East Anglia, is totally indefensible?

Mr. Stonehouse: I think that this is right. The regions of the B.B.C. have been related not to community interests, but: to the range of the transmitters, and

I believe that the B.B.C. is sensible in changing its approach.

Mr. Bryan: Will the Minister say how deeply his local radio plans for 40 stations will put the B.B.C. into debt by the time the licence fee goes up in 1971?

Mr. Stonehouse: We have worked out all the finances of this with the B.B.C. with very great care, and are satisfied that the increase in the fee in April, 1971, together with the counter-evasion campaign that I am now conducting, will provide the B.B.C. with sufficient income to meet all its commitments.

Mr. Heath: May I press the Minister further? Is he giving the House an assurance that in 1971, when the licence fee goes up, the B.B.C. will in no way be in debt?

Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot give that assurance, because it depends partly on the success of the counter-evasion campaign. We are considering here a very marginal question within 1 or 2 per cent. of the £100 million or so that the B.B.C. receives each year.

Mr. Emery: On a point of order. As the Prime Minister, in answering his last Question today, refused to answer my question about the B.B.C. in the South-West and suggested that I put it to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, might I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to put that question now?

Mr. Speaker: Even the Prime Minister cannot persuade Mr. Speaker that someone will catch his eye for a supplementary Question.

Orders of the Day — POLICE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. May I draw attention to the fact that the Bill deals with Ulster and that one-third of the counties in Ulster are in the Republic of Ireland, a country which is as independent as Norway or Sweden, and that therefore, the Bill is ultra vires the House. I ask that the Bill be referred back to a committee to deal with the question of ultra vires.

The Chairman: The Committee will note what the hon. and learned Gentleman has had to say. This is not a point of order, but a point of debate. The only way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman could influence us would be by putting down Amendments to the Bill, which he has not done. I cannot help him further in this matter.

Mr. Hector Hughes: With respect, one-third of the territory dealt with in the Bill is outside the jurisdiction of this Parliament, and cannot, therefore, be dealt with by this Parliament. The Bill should, therefore, be referred back to a committee which can deal with the question of ultra vires.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Shirley Williams): Further to that point of order. The Bill has no title of the kind to which my hon. and learned Friend is objecting.

The Chairman: I cannot allow a debate on the point of order. I cannot add anything to what I said to the hon. and learned Gentleman. This is a matter that can be raised in debate, but not in any other way.

Clause 1

AID BY HOME POLICE FORCES OF THE ROYAL ULSTER CONSTABULARY AND VICE VERSA.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1,

line 15, leave out from 'assistance' to end of line 16.

The Chairman: With this Amendment we will take Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 4, leave out from 'assistance' to end of line 5.

Mr. Carlisle: The Bill deals mainly with the police in this country and gives power to police authorities to provide mutual aid to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The Amendment is a purely probing Amendment. The Committee will remember that Clause 1 deals with mutual aid, as it was referred to on Second Reading, and the power of police forces to give assistance to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As the Opposition then made clear, we welcome the provision and think that it will be useful.
The Bill provides that help may be given for the purpose of enabling the Royal Ulster Constabulary—
to meet a special demand on its resources".
The purpose of the Amendment is to leave out those words, so as to invite the Minister of State to explain as fully as she is able what is intended by the words "special demand", and the way in which she envisages the use of police forces from this country in Northern Ireland.
I appreciate that the words
a special demand on its resources
are the same words as appear in Section 14 of the Police Act, which deals with mutual assistance between police forces in this country, and I think that the power is used, for example, in drafting in additional policemen on the occasion of a demonstration, let us say, in the City of London, or possibly for an international football match or a match involving the Springbok rugby team.
Is it intended that those words should be interpreted exactly the same for the purpose of assistance to Northern Ireland? The Home Secretary on Second Reading said that assistance would be given only for an extraordinary commitment of comparatively short duration.
4.0 p.m.
The Committee must face the fact that sending policemen to Northern Ireland is inevitably likely to be an act of longer duration than merely moving members of a police force from one county in


this country into a next door county to give assistance. I want an assurance that by the words "special demand" the Home Secretary is envisaging a situation in which policemen will go to Northern Ireland only for use in what are described as "normal police duties" and that they will not be required to carry out tasks which are not normal within the police tasks in this country.
I assume that they might be sent to Northern Ireland to ensure the continuance of law and order. But should law and order break down, as happened in recent months, I gather that it would be the Armed Forces rather than the police in this country to whom the Government would turn.
Can we be given examples of the type of occasion when this mutual assistance might be given? On Second Reading, the Home Secretary referred to football matches, but I cannot believe that there is a long history of football matches in Northern Ireland creating such a disturbance as would require greater numbers of policemen to be present than exist in Ulster at a given time. I cannot believe that it is intended that the Bill should be limited to football matches; so presumably the Government have in mind demonstrations, processions and things of that kind.
For how long does the hon. Lady envisage policemen who are sent to Northern Ireland for "a comparatively short period" being there? We know from what has regrettably happened in recent months that something which starts as a sudden emergency may last for weeks or months. What time scale does the Home Office have in mind?
To some extent the Home Secretary dealt with these matters on Second Reading, but we feel that the Home Office should be given an opportunity at this stage to state clearly the circumstances in which, and the purposes for which, it envisages policemen from this country being sent to Northern Ireland and the length of time they may be required to stay there.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I remind the Minister that on the last occasion that policemen from this country were sent to deal with an emergency outside the areas of their

original forces they were sent to Anguilla. They were sent there under quite different legislation—indeed, it was colonial legislation—than that with which we are now dealing.
The Minister will be the first to agree that when those policemen were asked to volunteer, or when it was suggested that they should volunteer, they went in the expectation of being there for a comparatively short time. When they arrived in Anguilla they found agreeable conditions, but the circumstances were somewhat different from what they were led to expect. Consequently, there are still members of the Metropolitan Police Force in Anguilla doing a useful job.
I mention this to illustrate that it is one thing at the beginning of an exercise to estimate the length of time during which a group of policemen will be required to serve elsewhere, but it is quite another to stick to that estimate in the changing circumstances in which those officers might find themselves.
With the experience of Anguilla in mind, the Minister owes it to the Committee to tell us how the Government will be able to determine the length of time for which officers will be sent away. That assurance should be given before, and not after, we dispose of the Bill.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: It might help if I start by pointing out the effects of the Amendments which are before the Committee on the Bill. Amendment No. 1 concerns subsection (1), which deals with aid that may be given by the chief officer of a home force to the Inspector-General of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the application of the Inspector-General. Amendment No. 5 concerns subsection (2), which relates to a situation in which the Secretary of State directs that aid shall be supplied; that is, if he is satisfied by the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland that that is necessary.
The removal of the words as proposed would result in a situation where, in a perfectly ordinary way, mutual aid could be supplied. But subsection (2) would be left in a rather odd fashion from the point of view of the Home Secretary, having to reassure himself of certain matters in connection with public order. While subsection (2) would still impose this condition on the Secretary of


State, it would not list the "special demand". The Amendment would, therefore, make the subsection defective.
The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) pointed out that the phrase "special demand" was copied from the comparable British legislation. The Bill has precisely the intention that the same meaning shall be put on those words in this extension of mutual aid to Northern Ireland as at present applies to the relationship between British police forces. We are, therefore, thinking of very short-term additional needs for our police forces.
I was asked to give examples of the types of occasion for which such a special demand might be created. Such an incident could be the one given by my right hon. Friend on Second Reading— a football match. In the light of something that has been concerning the House in the last few days—the situation arising from the Springbok tour—this is not an irrelevant example. Hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will know that just such a situation might arise as a consequence of a football match.
Another example—this is common among British police forces—is a Royal procession or Royal visit where, for ceremonial purposes, policemen are required often in large numbers. Yet another example might be a major civil disaster such as a railway accident or flood. My right hon. Friend gave another instance— hon. Members will readily call to mind other examples—when he referred to a possible major civil demonstration about which it was felt that the police could, for the common good, be better used rather than the Regular or special reserve forces of the Armed Forces. All of these instances are, by their nature, short in duration.
As to the possibility of a long-term emergency arising, I repeat the assurance which my right hon. Friend gave on Second Reading, namely, that the Clause will not be made operative until such time as the situation in Northern Ireland is more similar to that existing in this country from the point of view of the use of policemen and the co-operation of the civilian public.
If an emergency were to recur, even after the Clause was in operation, fol-

lowing a period of calm, then that would be the sort of emergency about which there would have to be discussions with the Police Federation and chief constables in this country before the Measure would be considered to be a proper instrument.
We are, therefore, not talking about a situation in which an emergency exists or even about a future emergency occurring. We are discussing the sort of situation in which the Bill would be used, in the same way as the present Act is used by home police forces.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) raised a similar point. I assure him that because subsection (1) would in any event require the agreement of the chief constable of the home forces, because we would expect the chief constable to consult the Home Office if, in his view, there was to be any demand made upon his force for more than a few days. We would wish to consider the matter carefully, We would not permit forces in a situation such as that of Anguilla, where there was not a special problem as I have interpreted it, but a civil emergency.

Mr. Carlisle: I thank the hon. Lady for her assurance as to the way in which the words are to be interpreted. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 16, at end insert:
Provided that—

(a) to the best of his knowledge he is satisfied that the conditions of police service in Northern Ireland are broadly comparable in all the circumstances to those obtaining at the time in England and Wales,
(b) the provision of such assistance to the Royal Ulster Constabulary will not reduce the strength of readiness of the aiding force to such a level as would impair the ability of that force to carry out its statutory responsibilities to its own police authority.

The Chairman: With this Amendment, it may be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 10, at end insert:
Provided that—

(a) he is satisfied that the conditions of police service in Northern Ireland are broadly comparable in all the circumstances to those obtaining at that time in England and Wales,
(b) after consultation with the Police Advisory Board he is satisfied that such


aiding forces as he may direct to provide assistance to the Royal Ulster Constabulary will not by reason of sending constables to Northern Ireland be reduced in strength to such a, level as would impair their ability to discharge in full their responsibilities to their own police authorities.
and Amendment No. 12, in clause 4, page 4, line 35, at end insert:
(2) The staff side of the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall be represented on the Police Council for the United Kingdom by elected representatives of those of its ranks as correspond with the number in England, Wales and Scotland of chief officers, superintendents and the ranks as represented by the Police Federation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since Amendment No. 12 is quite different in import it might be convenient, Mr. Irving, if we were to take Amendments Nos. 2 and 7 together and then perhaps have a separate debate on Amendment No. 12.

The Chairman: The principle appeared to be comparable, but I understood that the Government wished to deal with the matter in this way. I have no objection.

Sir David Renton: We want to have an orderly debate and Amendments Nos. 2 and 7 raise closely comparable points, but Amendment No. 12 is entirely separate and deals merely—

The Chairman: I was agreeing that this should happen.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Amendments Nos. 2 and 7 stand on two legs. The first is designed to ensure that before policemen are sent to Northern Ireland in the first instance the chief officer, and in the case of Amendment No. 7 the Home Secretary, shall satisfy himself that the conditions of service into which policemen are sent shall be broadly comparable with the conditions of service for which they have volunteered in this country.
The second leg of the Amendment seeks to ensure that either the chief officer or the Home Secretary will not reduce the level of manpower or of other resources in the home forces to such a level that they would be unable to carry out the statutory duties which are laid upon them in policing this country. I hope that the Government will be able to accept these Amendments, or at least will give adequate assurances to see that the points are met.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Am I correct, in my reading of Clause 1, that policemen sent to assist the authorites in Northern Ireland will still be employed by the police authority in England and Wales and not by the Royal Ulster Constabulary? If that interpretation is correct, would not their conditions of police service remain unchanged in spite of the fact that they were in a different part of the United Kingdom?

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman had waited until I had developed my speech, he would have heard the answer to his question. The conditions of service must be seen in two ways. First, there are the conditions of service in the technical sense, discipline regulations, hours of duty, pay, and so on, and, secondly, there are conditions in a broader sense in connection with the overall political climate in which a policeman operates. I hope to develop the second point.
When a police officer joins the service in this country, he has the specific expectation of serving throughout his career in certain clearly understood conditions. The conditions obtaining in this country are by and large those of an extremely peaceful country. We can say without any braggadocio that this country, for all its demonstrations and rising crime rate, is one of the most peaceful, civilised and tolerant societies in existence. Therefore, policemen who join the service in this country expect that broadly those will be the conditions in which their careers will be conducted.
By the 1964 Police Act the police can be required to serve anywhere in England and Wales and, in the case of the Scottish force, anywhere in Scotland. This Bill creates for the ordinary policeman a new obligation in the sense that he will now be required, or could be required, to serve in different circumstances. Those are the different circumstances of Ulster.
There are four broad reasons that the circumstances of police service in Ulster are at the moment different from those in this country. The first is the history of Ulster. I will not go through it, but merely state as a fact that the history of Ulster has created a different situation as between religious and other groups in that area which is not comparable with the situation on this side of St. George's Channel.
Secondly, there is the communal problem. Anyone who has recently been in Ulster, as I have, with other hon. Members, will accept that the communal differences in Ulster generate great friction. This is something we all regret, but it is a different set of circumstances into which the police are injected than those which apply in this country, with the possible exception of occasional occurrences in cities like Liverpool and Glasgow.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: Although that uphappy situation used to exist in Liverpool, I would point out that it no longer exists there.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sure that it is my own Friend's own personal activity which has led at least in part to this accommodation between the two groups in Liverpool. I congratulate him on his effort.
There is a third difference and that is the effect of the border. In this country we do not have a border which is contested by an adjoining nation. I make no complaint about this, but simply record as an objective fact that the border in Ireland creates a different set of conditions in which the police are expected to operate than exist in this country, surrounded as it is by the sea.
The fourth major difference is the existence in Ulster of what I might call extra-constitutional opposition. This may offend hon. Members opposite, but I hope I shall not need to quote from biographies or any of the statements which have been made from time to time to prove there are those in Northern Ireland who do not accept the present constitutional situation. They believe that Ulster should be torn away from the United Kingdom and placed under a different sovereignty. The British police in this country have no such problem to contend with. If sent to Ulster they will be required to face up to this different constitutional position.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: To keep the record straight, since many of us share the concern about what might happen to our own police forces if they go to Ulster, would the hon. Member not agree that there are strong extra-constitutional forces there whose main aim is to try to keep union with the United Kingdom,

sometimes in strange and mysterious ways?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is well-versed in the intricacies of this matter, but I do not see how it possibly can be extra-constitutional to us to reduce the constitutional links with this country. On the contrary—

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to pursue this point, but if there is an extremist organisation on the other side which is outside the law, which is proscribed by the Special Powers Act from using explosives, arms, and so on, and which tries to create a situation favourable to its own ideas, that is still an extra-constitutional force working outside the law.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I do not wish to argue back and forth with the hon. Gentleman about the precise constitution of "an extra-constitutional opposition". I record merely the fact that British police, who have no such experience in this country, may be asked to go into circumstances in which there is an extra-constitutional opposition or, if the hon. Gentleman prefers it, a number of them He and I might disagree as to the precise history. However, the objective fact remains that the police may be asked to confront a situation which is quite different in that respect from anything which they confront here. I think that that broad point can be agreed by both sides of the Committee.
There are a number of technical differences between the police circumstances in the two countries. To begin with, I mention the differences in the legal systems. I am not a lawyer, and I shall be corrected if I misstate the situation, but there can be no doubt that Northern Ireland has not one but two authorities, the authority of the Northern Ireland Parliament, which is sovereign in many respects though not all, and the authority of the United Kingdom Government. In this country, in the ordinary sense, the police do not confront two different authorities of that kind. Therefore, there is that distinction in the terms of service which they must operate on that side of the Channel.
There are different laws. I will not go into the merits of them. I accept the necessity for them. It is an objective fact that in Northern Ireland there are such


laws as the Special Powers Act and the Flags and Emblems Act, if I describe it correctly, which are different from the laws here. This is not the place to argue the merits of those laws. It is sufficient for my case merely to say that they exist, that they are different, and that any police sent there from Britain might find themselves in difficult circumstances in not knowing precisely what the writ of their instructions includes.
There is a third technical difference, and I refer now to the discipline regulations. If one examines the discipline regulations of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and those of the British forces, one sees that they are broadly comparable. They proceed from the same sort of philosophy and the same basic constitutional views. Nevertheless, there are distinct differences. It would not be helpful to elaborate them here. I record again the objective fact that the discipline regulations under which the police are asked to serve in this country and those which the Royal Ulster Constabulary are required to observe in Ulster are different. It is no good saying that police could be sent from this country and placed under different disciplinary regulations unless previously they were given adequate instructions about the differences with which they would have to live.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to clarify one point to the Committee. He has declared his interests on a number of occasions, and I make no point of the fact that he has not done so today. However, he is now expressing certain views. Would he care to distinguish those which represent the views of the Police Federation and those which represent his own?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The views which I am expressing are my own. It is well known that I have a connection with the Police Federation. I consider the views which it puts to me, and I judge them. I put forward those which I believe to be worth putting forward and no others. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the police force. Although my name does not appear on the Notice Paper as supporting the hon. Gentleman, most hon. Members on this side of the

Committee support his Amendments. We feel that, quite rightly, he is looking after the legitimate interests of the police force, as a good trade unionist should. However, in voicing his support for such obnoxious and odious legislation as the Special Powers Act, for example, he does a grave disservice to the police in this country. Although he speaks for himself, he alienates a large section of opinion on this side of the Committee which has a great deal of sympathy for his other points.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is easily alienated. It does not require much effort to achieve that state of affairs. I do not think that his intervention is very helpful. Of course, I could have raised the whole issue of the Special Powers Act. I did not do so. I merely declare the fact that circumstances in the two countries are very different. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so, I will say clearly that, in the circumstances of Ulster, my view is that it was inevitable that such laws should be passed. I do not know what he thinks that he is achieving by his intervention.
There is the possibility that the police might be asked to go to different circumstances, in which I include different political, emotional and community circumstances, different constitutional circumstances, different disciplinary circumstances and different legal circumstances. In short, they could be asked to go into a situation with which they are completely unfamiliar.
They may be asked to go among people, although they are citizens of our country, about whose emotions, history and habits the British police know little. They may be asked to place themselves in a position where they have to administer laws about which they are ignorant. They may be placed under disciplinary regulations with which they are not familiar. Is it reasonable to ask the British police to do that? If we were dealing solely with volunteers, the situation would be different.
Clause 2 deals with those who engage as volunteers for periods of service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Men who volunteer accept the different circumstances into which they may go. Clause 1 does not deal with volunteers. In the first instance, it deals with those


who are sent under discipline by their chief officers. Since we are taking both Amendments together, there is the further part of the Clause where the Home Secretary, if he judges it to be desirable, can direct British policemen to go against their wishes, against the wishes of their chief constables and against the wishes of their local police authorities.
4.30 p.m.
I do not believe that any Home Secretary responsible to this House would override the local police authorities and chief constables, except in the direst emergency. However, that is not what the Bill says. It says that he may do it, and the Minister's assurances on Second Reading, which I accepted and will accept again if she repeats them, do not appear in the legislation.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a considerable degree of devolution in police force powers in this country. There are many areas where the local circumstances are entirely different from those in other areas. One could get a number of police officers from different parts of the country who have already the kind of experience which the hon. Gentleman says that they ought to have.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, to some extent. However, I think that he is missing my main point. There is a difference of degree as between the circumstances of our police forces and those which they might find in Northern Ireland. It is true that police can be sent from one force to another anywhere in this country. When they do so, although, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are regional and provincial differences, nevertheless, the essentials of police service are similar.
From personal experience with many forces in this country, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the objective desiderata under which the police operate are broadly comparable. This is not so when we contrast the situation with that under which the Royal Ulster Constabulary has had to operate. This is not arguable. It is an objective fact, and this is my main thesis.
I was making the point that if we were dealing with volunteers there would

be no objection. But we are here dealing with compulsion. We are dealing with the direction of men who volunteered to serve, when they joined the force, in one set of circumstances, and we are now saying that they must accept, under discipline, what could be very different circumstances indeed.
Does the Minister think that that is reasonable in all the circumstances? We have had assurances from the Minister, and I accept them; but I am not happy about the language used by the Home Secretary, about the language used by the hon. Lady this afternoon. The Home Secretary said that he would not send British policemen to Ulster unless the conditions in Ulster—I think I quote him exactly—"approximated more closely to those in Britain than they have in recent times"
Today, the hon. Lady used an even vaguer expression. She said, "when the circumstances are more similar than they have been in the recent past". To say that we will not send policemen until the circumstances are more similar or approximate more closely to those in this country than they have in the recent past, is to say almost nothing, because it is to reserve judgment entirely to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Minister.

Mr. Lubbock: And to the House.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Not to the House. It reserves judgment entirely to Ministers.
I am prepared to accept the undertakings that have been given by the present Home Secretary and by the Minister, but we have to look to the future. No one can say that in a different set of circumstances in future different incumbents in office will feel so closely bound by the assurances that have been given by the Home Secretary and the Minister of State. What will bind the Ministers' successors is what the Bill says. The Bill does not say that there will be a dispatch of police forces only when conditions are broadly comparable. It is for that reason that my Amendment, or something like it, should be included in the Bill.

Mr. Lubbock: I was wrong to say "and to the House". The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, because the Minister can bring this into operation by order. It does not have to be subject to negative


or affirmative Resolution. While the hon. Gentleman is making this point to the Minister. I wonder whether he thinks that this suggestion might be adopted on Report. If we apply the negative Resolution procedure the Minister will have to satisfy the House that conditions have been restored to normal.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have given a good deal of thought to this matter. The suggestion that he has just made attracted me for some while, but I had to reject it because we might be dealing with emergency circumstances and I do not think that it would be right to tie the hands of the Home Secretary by the necessity of coming to the House of Commons and obtaining approval.
There must be some discretion and freedom of operation in emergency circumstances. It is much wiser for the House to obtain, in the general Statute that we are about to pass, some understanding of what shall be the criteria by which normalcy is judged by Ministers. Frankly, with the best will in the world towards the Minister of State, she has not helped very much by saying that she would wait until conditions were more similar than they have been recently. I do not know what that means. It could mean anything or almost nothing.
I have put a number of objections to the Clause in support of my Amendment. When I ask that the Committee should accept that the conditions must be seen to be broadly comparable, it is incumbent upon me to show in what way I would arrive at the conclusion that they were broadly comparable. I therefore put it to the Government that, before they bring in the trigger mechanism—in other words, put in the date for bringing the Bill into effect—the police should be assured that certain conditions have been met.
First, that, broadly speaking, the political situation in Ulster has been normalised. Once again, the word "normalised" can beg the whole question, but it is essential that they are assured that there are not in Ulster groups of people, whom I have described as revolutionary communes, defying the law by force. It is elemenetary that the police should be assured, before being sent to Ireland, that they will not be confronted by an

armed revolutionary commune and, indeed, what I have also described as armed urban guerrillas. The British police are entitled to that assurance before being sent to Ulster.
Secondly—and the Home Secretary went a long way towards meeting my fears on this count the other day—they should be assured that it is possible for police activities to be carried out in Ulster without the carrying of arms. The Minister will be quick to accept that the greatest resistance to the carrying of arms by the police in this country comes from the police. It is very much to their credit and something of which this country can be proud that the police object to carrying arms. Therefore, it is all the more important that they should be assured that the circumstances in Ulster have been ameliorated to a point where normal policing activities can be carried out without the necessity of carrying weapons.
Recently, the Home Secretary said that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was carrying out patrols in the main without carrying weapons. One of my hon. Friends told me at the time that this had gone on for some considerable period by its own choice and decision. I think that we ought to congratulate the Royal Ulster Constabulary on its courage in doing this in all the circumstances. But we are talking about the sending of unarmed British police into those circumstances, and it is right that they should be given a broad assurance that they will not be asked to go into policing conditions where the carrying of arms is necessary. The police are an unarmed force, they wish to remain unarmed, and they are entitled to that assurance.
Thirdly, a broad assurance should be given to the British police who might be asked to go to Northern Ireland that the import of weapons into Ulster has been reduced or stopped. It would be irresponsible of any hon. Member to pay too much attention to Press stories over the last week or so of gun running into Ulster. There have been a lot of alarmist headlines about destroyers being sent out on patrol to prevent ammunition and weapons being taken in. Whatever the merits may be, the objective situation appears to be that there is still a danger of arms sand ammunition being run into Ulster.
Therefore, it is reasonable for the police to be given an assurance, before being sent to this Province, that gunrunning into Ulster has at least been brought under control. Otherwise, they are being asked to go into what remains a para-military situation; not one of a civilian character with which they are best equipped to deal.
I have spoken at length, but I have more to say, because there is the second leg of my Amendment.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I have been following my hon. Friend's argument, but I should like to put one point to him. While taking his point about armed insurrection, what does he say about a situation where the police are being attacked with stones and petrol bombs prepared by a hostile crowd? Is this sufficient to merit the use of constabulary from Great Britain?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend has put precisely the sort of dilemma with which I believe Ministers will be confronted. This is the sort of delicate decision which they will have to make. What is a normal police situation, and what is one where the police are being asked to assume a para-military role? That is why I say that it is not enough just to say that the circumstances shall be more similar to British circumstances than they have been in the recent past. The hon. Lady is not giving us any assurance. She owes it to the House to spell out more clearly precisely what circumstances will trigger the Bill and send British forces into those circumstances. She has not done so, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter.
The second leg of my Amendment relates to the necessity to ensure that in sending police from this country to Northern Ireland the level of the forces in this country shall not be reduced to a state where they can no longer discharge their statutory duty to the citizens of this country. I am sure that we are entitled to demand that. I support the Bill, and I shall not seek to divide the Committee -I think that the Minister knows that- but I do not believe that it is in any way selfish—

Mr. Orme: If that is the case, the hon. Gentleman having explained the matter

in great detail, why is he now delaying the Committee, by discussing the matter further?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I thought that I was exercising my right of free speech on an important subject. If the hon. Gentleman would listen a little more, he might learn a little more.
The second prong of my argument is that it is important that the British forces in this country are not reduced to a level at which they cannot carry out their duties. Surely it is reasonable that the House of Commons should have regard to that. I choose my words carefully when I say that British police forces are in a condition of serious overstretch. This is particularly true of those major metropolitan forces from which it is most likely that the police reinforcements for Ulster will have to be taken. It is extremely likely that the men will have to come from such forces as the Metropolitan Police, the Liverpool and Bootle force, which is adjacent to Ireland- though I accept that there are difficulties in respect of that force-the Manchester force, and the West Midlands forces.
In support of the second prong of my Amendment I want to point out to the Committee what I am sure the hon. Lady already knows, namely, that the nearest substantial force to Ulster, that is to say, the Liverpool and Bootle constabulary, has an establishment of 2,580, but the actual strength is 1,950, a very substantial difference between what it is supposed to have, and what it actually has. To ask a force which has a deficiency of nearly one-third in what it is supposed to have to do its normal statutory police duties, to send a number of men to Ulster in emergency conditions, is to take a risk with the adequacy of the police cover in the aiding force.
The same consideration applies to the Metropolitan force, which I am sure the House admires. It has an establishment of 26,058, but its actual strength is just on 20,000. There is a deficiency of 6,000 men in this force. I therefore submit that my Amendment is reasonable, indeed necessary. The Committee should not agree that London policemen should be sent to Ulster, without consultation, in some circumstances. It is wrong that they should be sent there if the result is that the Commissioner finds


himself unable, with the men available, to discharge his full statutory duty to the people of London, and indeed to this House.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In asking for safeguards my hon. Friend has mentioned the police forces in England and Wales. Is he aware that in Scotland there is a shortage of policemen amounting to almost—

The Chairman: Order. To elaborate on that would be out of order. The hon. Member has made his point.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. If I had thought about it a little more carefully I should have included Scotland in my Amendment. I apologise to my hon. Friend, and through him to the Scottish police for having failed to do so. The point made by my hon. Friend is right, even though, Mr. Irving, you consider it to be inadmissible under the technical rules of order.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Police Federation or the Chief Constables' Association has objected to any of the men being transferred to Northern Ireland in the event of an emergency?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The answer to that is that no policemen have as yet been transferred to Northern Ireland. The only people who have been sent there are the Commissioner of the City of London, Mr. Mark, the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and at best perhaps 10 assistants and others to help them. No policemen have as yet been sent, from this country to Ulster, and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the organisations to which I have referred have never considered this matter?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: They have considered it to the extent that I have been briefed en the speech that I am making this afternoon-[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I declared an interest in this long before

the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber.

Mr. William Baxter: Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire) rose—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall not give way.
The crucial matter is that the police associations, and in particular the Police Federation with which I am connected, have considered this matter carefully and have come to the conclusion that there are some apprehensions which ought to be resolved before the House passes the Bill. That is precisely why I am on my feet, in the hope, and indeed the belief, that the Minister will be able to clear them up.
I have made the point that the forces in this country are in a condition of serious overstretch. The Minister knows that, and no doubt she will quote figures when she replies. Perhaps I might tell the hon. Lady that for every figure that she can quote to prove her point, I can quote two to prove mine.
We all know that in what are described as the aiding force areas, those areas may have to send men to Northern Ireland, there has been a substantial increase in crime, in demonstrations, in drug taking, and in violence of all kinds. Not only are the police forces finding that they are well below establishment, but that the demands upon them are increasing at an accelerating rate. We therefore have the peculiar situation that, on the one hand, the police forces, particularly those which might be asked to send help, are demonstrably well below their manpower establishments, and the demands upon their services are rising at a rate that only policemen can really experience, and, on the other, the House of Commons is about to place upon them yet another obligation, that of sending large drafts of men to Ulster in certain circumstances.
The second leg of my argument is designed to ensure that before chief officers, or indeed the Home Secretary where it is his responsibility, send men to Ulster they will ascertain, first, that they will not be reducing the police cover below the statutory requirement. Secondly, that they will have regard to the level of manpower. Thirdly, that they will have regard to the conditions


of crime, demonstrations, and other demands on the police in this country. Fourthly, that they will satisfy themselves that in all the circumstances it is safe to send policemen from this country to Ulster.
I conclude with these general points. I believe that the Bill is necessary and that it is in the national interest that we should pass it. I am sure that the Royal Ulster Constabulary not only needs but deserves the help which can be given from police forces in this country. But the Government have brought the Bill forward too rapidly. They have not thought out all its implications. Many questions arise concerning the assimilation of discipline regulations and safeguarding the circumstances in which policemen shall be asked to operate. It would have been wiser for the Government, although I recognise the pressures upon them, to have thought a little more carefully before presenting a Bill which is filled with minor holes. I do not object to the Bill as a whole; indeed, I shall support it. But these minor holes are a problem and they need to be dealt with.
I hope, and expect, that the Minister will be able to give us the necessary assurances. If she wishes the Ulster police to be effectively reinforced by police in this country, in the end that effectiveness will depend on how well the men who go there are prepared for the service which they are asked to give and how committed they feel to the operation which they are asked to undertake. It is one thing for a Minister to tell them to go. It is a quite different matter for the policeman who is sent there to have his heart in what he is doing and to be prepared for the job that he is asked to do.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to make sure that the police of this country, if asked to go to Northern Ireland, are not placed under different and difficult circumstances for which they are not prepared. If she can give that assurance, she will have my support.

Mr. McNamara: I did not intend to intervene at this stage because there would be general agreement on this side of the Committee with the substance of the Amendment. But, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) advanced a case in support of some legs of his argument which

many members in the police force which I represent would not be happy about. He also threw in a few comments which, if they went unchallenged, might create the impression that British police forces were being asked to help to put down armed urban guerrillas.
The essential reason for this Bill and the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill and the Government's involvement in the rather tragic situation in Ulster is that law and order had palpably broken down in two areas, one in Belfast and one in Londonderry, because the police were not seen to be operating in a manner in which we would expect policemen to operate in this country, and these "armed urban guerrillas", rather than being a threat to the British police, approached my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and asked for British police to be sent to, for example, the Bogside area because they felt that they could trust the impartiality of the police in this country but, because of a long and tragic history, could not trust the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is not a question whether their fears were justified. The fact is that they existed. They believed that they could not trust that police force.
Therefore, when people talk about pennies and petrol bombs being thrown, we must look at the attitude of people involved in a particular situation. If members of a community felt that their homes would be invaded by the police, that windows would be broken, that they had to barricade their houses with wire, hardboard and timber, or that they might be truncheoned to the ground by the police because they happened to live in a particular area, one can appreciate why they thought that they must react to that threat.
Having said that necessarily to put the record straight, I concede many points which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds made to support his general thesis. We want to ensure that our police forces, when they go across the sea, are adequately protected in terms of their condition of service and of what will happen to their home towns when they have gone. That is an important matter and we want to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about it. But neither I nor my hon. Friends, or many members of the British police forces, would want to be associated with what the hon.


Gentleman said about the Special Powers Act and the circumstances which necessitated this Bill.

Mr. McMaster: I support the Amendments. At the moment the conditions of police service in Northern Ireland are comparable to those in the United Kingdom. But the Amendment serves an important purpose in drawing attention to and underlining this matter in the hope that these conditions will continue to exist between the police forces in Northern Ireland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is very desirable that the conditions of service in Northern Ireland and in the rest of Great Britain should be as comparable as possible.
Unfortunately, the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) seemed to indicate that this was a one-sided exchange. The Bill enables the Stormont Parliament to enact provisions similar to those in this Bill. Therefore, this will be a two-sided exchange which will be to the benefit of both sides. For my hon. Friend to lay too much stress on the manner in which the police forces in this country may be depleted or detrimentally affected by such an exchange does not do complete justice to the situation, because presumably the Stormont Parliament will be passing comparable legislation which will enable policemen in Northern Ireland to come to Great Britain to help out.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I accept that the letter and spirit of my Amendment should apply from the Ulster to the British police in the same way that it applies from the British to the Ulster police.

Mr. McMaster: I am glad that attention has been drawn to this point. I look upon this as a two-sided exchange and as being of great benefit to both sides. In such matters as the crime detection rate, the Royal Ulster Constabulary is without rival. It has a very high detection rate which could be of great benefit here.
I cannot accept the statement of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the police in Northern Ireland acting in any way dishonourably in Londonderry or Belfast. In the days following 12th August, the police in Northern Ireland were subjected to a sustained and vicious attack with

stones, petrol bombs and shot fired from slings. Petrol bombs were thrown at them from the tops of houses as a result of which over 600 members of the force were injured. This was a completely unjustified attack. On 12th August rioting crowds of republicans, or a small group, went right through the centre of Londonderry breaking windows and looting shops. It was the job of the police to stop this. They stood in a line in the street to prevent a riot which had no justification from causing damage to people and property in Londonderry.

Mr. McNamara: Mr. McNamara rose—

Mr. McMaster: If the hon. Gentleman waits until I have finished this point, I will give way to him.
The police stood there for three days and were attacked by wave after wave of armed hooligans, fall-outs and the like. This is the background against which we must consider the situation. The police were doing their duty in trying to detect—

5.0 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Both sides are in danger of elaborating the point in too great detail and are, in so doing, going beyond the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. McMaster: As an allegation was made, I felt that it was my duty—

The Chairman: Order. I thought that I had given the hon. Gentleman a great deal of scope.

Mr. McNamara: I was trying to make the point that whether or not these fears were justified, they existed. We hope that British policemen will not be brought into that type of situation. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to bandy words with me I am willing to do so, and on Third Reading I will be entitled to take several hours in doing so, if necessary.

Mr. McMaster: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that I hope that this sort of situation will never recur in Northern Ireland. It is to be hoped that a vicious and sustained attack on our policemen in Northern Ireland will never again take place.

Mr. McNamara: Or suspicion of the police.

Mr. McMaster: That arose because certain searches were carried out. It is a matter of common knowledge that petrol and milk bottles were stolen—

The Chairman: Order. I have already indicated to the hon. Gentleman that he has gone too far beyond the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. McMaster: Since the Amendment states that the Minister must be
… satisfied that the conditions of police service in Northern Ireland are broadly comparable in all the circumstances to those obtaining at the time in England and Wales".
I thought that I would be in order in describing those conditions of service.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman was in order to that extent. It was to the over-elaboration of detail in making the point that I was objecting.

Mr. McMaster: When police constables see people engaged in felonious acts-for example, filling bottles with petrol so that they can be thrown at the police-the police are surely entitled to carry out searches in those circumstances.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing the very course to which I took exception.

Mr. McMaster: I have made the point sufficiently to show that the conditions of police service in Northern Ireland are not dissimilar to those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The conditions with which the police must deal, on the other hand, may be different, but it is in these circumstances that the Northern Ireland Government may use the provisions of the Bill to call for assistance from policemen in the rest of Great Britain.
These provisions are of mutual benefit, as I explained earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds pointed out that some police forces in Britain are depleted. There may occasionally arise a need for policemen from Northern Ireland to come to this country. I much prefer the police being reinforced by other policemen than by the Army. For this reason, I support the Amendment.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: It was not my intention to speak at this stage, but I rise to add to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member

for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
I am in agreement with the general tone of the Amendment, though I oppose the line of argument which has been adduced in support of it by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If we consider the conditions of police service in Northern Ireland and ask if those conditions and the tasks arising from them are in any way comparable with what must be tackled by policemen in the rest of the United Kingdom, one need only consider what has happened in recent months to get the answer.
Leaving aside the question of urban guerrillas, and so on, it has never been the practice of policemen in this country to engage in active fighting on this scale. No matter how great a demonstration or the tactics of the demonstrators, the police in this country have never pitched themselves in open battle against ordinary people, or have had to contain a demonstration of such a riotous kind.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—

Miss Devlin: Because the hon. Gentleman would not give to me, I will not give way to him.
I will describe the sort of activities which may have to be faced by 100, 500, or whatever number of constables may be sent from this country to Northern Ireland to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They will find the police there running around the streets picking up stones, gathering them in their shields and charging down streets throwing them at people. Are the policemen from this country expected to fall in with that sort of activity?
Is that comparable with what the police in this country must do, leaving aside the feelings they may have for individuals or bodies? [Interruption.] I have described what members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary did on 4th and 5th January. They walked down streets breaking windows and terrorising the inhabitants. [Interruption.] One cannot compare such conduct with the activities of policemen in this country.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Miss Devlin: While we are dealing with legal points, we have not dealt with the attitude of the gentlemen employed


in Northern Ireland to be policemen and the attitude of the gentlemen in this country who are employed as policemen. These two attitudes must be brought closer together. This can be done, but there must be greater changes in the Royal Ulster Constabulary to make it happen, and the members of that force would benefit greatly from proper training and experience.
Those attitudes must be brought closer together before we start moving policemen from one country to another. After all, we will be moving policemen from this country into a medieval situation in which the police are nothing more than a tool in a feudal landlord system. We must teach the policemen of Northern Ireland what a real police force is.
For these reasons I broadly support the Amendment. However, I do not understand why, if the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) considers that there is such a lack of comparable conditions, he does not advocate a complete change in the law of the subsidiary Parliament.

Mr. Fortescue: Since the hon. Lady has been talking about the difference in attitude between the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and policemen in this country, as well as the different circumstances in which they find themselves, would not she agree that it would be highly unusual for a member of the police force in this country to find an hon. Member of this House breaking up stories in the street to throw at the police?

Miss Devlin: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has the right to state what he believes to be the reason why those stones were being broken, particularly as it is the subject of criminal offences with which I shall in the future be charged. I will only add that it must be a very sick society if an hon. Member of this House is forced into that situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Forced?"] It must be sick when she and other people are bound to defend themselves against the people who are paid by them to protect their lives and property.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: Before the hon. Lady sits down—

The Chairman: Order. I thought that the hon. Lady had sat down.

Mr. Evelyn King: We all ought to be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) for the very cogent speech he made on a subject which the House of Commons ought to debate before the Bill is passed. He asked questions which must be answered. I admired the verbal ingenuity of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) by which she contrived to debate a subject which, although fascinating, has little to do with this Amendment. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) a little ingenuous when, having described the throwing of petrol bombs, and so on, he suggested that police in Dorchester run the same kind of risk as police in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McMaster: I was thinking of the situation which occurred some time ago in Grosvenor Square, and which might arise again in England, in which police were attacked with stones and bottles. This is not quite unique to Northern Ireland.

Mr. King: I agree, but I think that we have reached unanimity in considering that the circumstances are not quite the same.
The validity of these Amendments bears wholly on the validity of the phrase used by the Minister of State when she referred to police being used in an emergency of short duration. I should have thought that any hon. Member hearing that phrase would immediately greet it with the utmost suspicion. I do not want to introduce another and even more vexed subject, but I do not forget that when the American President sent troops to Vietnam it was to deal with an emergency of a short duration. We see the full consequences of breaches of law and order almost all over the world, but we find that they appeared at first to be emergencies which would be of short duration.
I do not want to be a pessimist on this issue and I hope that the hon. Lady the Minister of State was right, but we have to assume that we are dealing with a situation in which British policemen might be sent to deal with a situation


which, in fact, will not be of short duration. If we assume that, these Amendments begin to have significance in many ways. I will not argue about the politics of Ireland. That is not my purpose. I am considering only the situation which might face policemen in my constituency or elsewhere.
The Minister of State will contradict me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the first Bill giving power to a chief constable or a Minister to order a British policeman to serve overseas, across the Channel, or at least outside his own force. We have to realise that to any policeman who has enrolled in a force this is a substantial additional responsibility. Of course, men often like service overseas and like to face danger. That sort of person would be more likely to join the Army, Navy or Air Force, but this is not one of the normal functions of the police.
We have to consider the conditions under which police serve. In Dorset, policemen have police houses and live with their wives and families. They have conditions of service which are totally different from those which would obtain in an emergency if they were called upon to serve for a long period in Northern Ireland. I do not think that we can put a great deal of reliance on the assurance that their service there will be short. We must have regard to the effect of this legislation, if it becomes law, on the British police forces.
5.15 p.m.
We can take what view we like of law and order-to use that controversial phrase-within these islands, including Ireland. I should like to be optimistic, but I cannot foresee a situation during the next year or two when the needs for police within these islands will diminish. I should have thought all the evidence is to the contrary. We are thousands short of police and that shortage, as the Minister of State will confirm, is particularly in urban areas. In large cities there is about a 33⅓ per cent. shortage. Therefore, if a contingent of any size were to be sent, the probability is that the obligation to supply that force could fall on the rural police.
That brings us to a situation in which a lad from a Dorset village sets out to be a Dorset policeman. He would have a

clear idea of the sort of life which lies before him in a village or small town. Sometimes he might be sent to Bristol to a football match, but he would not expect to be sent much further. If the obligation is now to be laid upon him that upon a single order he might be taken out of his home county, separated from his wife and children and removed from his police house, this would be a new departure of considerable consequence. When the Minister of State replies to the debate she ought to dwell for a moment on the allowances, the housing situation and the general situation which would face a policeman drafted to undertake duty which when he enlisted he never foresaw.
When we face emergencies of this kind we would all like to be optimistic, but I do not think that the hon. Lady can feel optimistic. She would be unwise to assume that the situation in Northern Ireland will necessarily improve so rapidly as she seemed to indicate and that a small use of these policemen will be needed.

Mr. Fortescue: I support paragraph (b) of the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). In that paragraph my hon. Friend tries to establish that British police forces should not be unduly weakened by the dispatch of police from this country to Northern Ireland.
The figures are alarming. At the end of July this year police forces of England and Wales were 19,000 short of establishment, establishment being the figure which chief constables throughout the country believe they should have to carry out their duties. There is an even more alarming figure. As against the permitted strength of police in England and Wales, which is the much reduced figure that the Home Secretary allows chief constables to recruit up to, this year there is still a shortage of 2,268 men and women. Police recruits are not coming forward in required numbers. Not only that, but more police are resigning than the number who are coming forward, so that the strength of the police force is falling, especially in urban areas.
The police force I know best is the Liverpool and Bootle force, and there—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member cannot debate police recruitment


on this Amendment except as it relates to the terms of the Amendment. He is going on to a degree of elaboration in which he is now getting out of order.

Mr. Fortescue: I appreciate that, Mr. Irving, but I believe the point I am making is relevant. Liverpool and Bootle is likely to be one of the forces which will be called upon to send men to Northern Ireland because it is just across the Channel and communications from Liverpool to Northern Ireland are very good. The strength of the Liverpool force in July this year was 1,950 against an establishment of 2,500. The Liverpool force is 66—

The Chairman: Order: The hon. Gentleman cannot go any further in this vein. He has made a very substantial point. He must leave it there.

Mr. Fortescue: I am sorry, Mr. Irving, but if the point is made I am delighted. The Amendment seeks to provide that
assistance to the Royal Ulster Constabulary will not reduce the strength or readiness of the aiding force to such a level as would impair the ability of that force to carry out its statutory responsibilities to its own police authority.
The strength of the Liverpool and Bootle force is already 66 below permitted strength, and that permitted strength is about 600 below authorised strength. The Liverpool and Bootle force is already below the strength which is necessary to enable it to carry out its statutory duties.
Before any men from this force are even considered for duty in Northern Ireland, the relative strength of the force to the needs of the City of Liverpool and the Borough of Bootle should be carefully considered. There is a rising crime rate in Liverpool and Bootle, especially vandalism, hooliganism and juvenile crime, owing to the lack of policemen men on the beat. The directing cadres of policemen in Liverpool are not as short—

The Chairman: Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman further scope, but he is going beyond what is reasonable.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: May I recall to my hon. Friend's mind that there is an under-manning allowance which has been agreed by the Police Council because—

The Chairman: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to have these facts brought before the Committee, but he has got out of order.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) for interrupting him. The terms of my Amendment are crystal clear. They deal with the point that an aiding force-the Liverpool and Bootle force might well be the aiding force-shall not be so affected by the sending of men to Ulster that it falls below its ability to carry out its duties.
The relevance of the point is that it has been agreed by the Police Council, including the Home Office, that this force is so much below its establishment as to require an under-manning allowance. What better evidence could there be that my hon. Friend's point is entirely justified?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must realise that there comes a point in time when elaboration becomes out of order. I am suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is on that line now, even with the point he has made.

Mr. Fortescue: My hon. Friend took the words out of my mouth, Mr. Irving. If he was out of order in doing so, I apologise on his behalf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) made the very pertinent point that in his part of the country, which is a rural area, there would be considerable objections to taking police from the force there and sending them in Northern Ireland. He told the Committee why. He explained that they were not used to duties in cities and were recruited on a different basis.
I have tried, when you have permitted me, Mr. Irving, to submit equally strongly that there would be grave objections to removing police from urban forces, because most urban forces in England and Wales are extremely short of men. Therefore, although most of us on this side are wholly in favour of the Bill, we are worried by the powers which it is taking to compel policemen, possibly against their will and against the will of the chief constables of the forces to which they belong—that power is implicit in the Bill—to go to Northern Ireland in


circumstances of emergency when practically every force in the country can be described as being unsuitable to be so raided.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The Amendment deals to some extent with the conditions which police who go over from this country might have to face when they reach Northern Ireland. There has been some discussion of this point by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and by the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). Perhaps I may be allowed to say, without transgressing the rules of order, that I hope that police who may have to go there will not readily accept the validity of the hon. Lady's argument, because when asked whether it was true that she had broken up stones and thrown them at the police she hid beneath the story that there was some form of sub judice involved.
This cannot be so, because this story, which she herself told under oath—

Mr. Orme: On a point of order. Is this relevant to the Amendment?

The Chairman: I am listening very carefully to the point which the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) is making. I have not taken the point yet. I will rule on it when I am seized of it.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I was referred to in some detail at an earlier stage when the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was, I think, out of the Chamber. The hon. Lady said under oath that she had thrown a stone. This was after she had denied throwing petrol bombs, but agreed that she had helped organise the throwing of petrol bombs. She said this under oath at the Scarman Tribunal.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to make this statement based upon evidence from the Scarman Tribunal, when an undertaking has been given that evidence given to Scarman will not be used as the basis of criminal proceedings in the courts in Northern Ireland and, therefore, this would not be admissible evidence if the hon. Lady were brought to trial?

The Chairman: If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is questioning the sub judice

rule, there is no such rule applying to legislation; and we are at the moment legislating.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Lady goes very much further than that in her book. That is certainly not sub judice. If the evidence given on oath to Scarman is accurate, the book must be very inaccurate, because she says—

The Chairman: Order. I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not yet been able to relate what he is saying to the Amendment. Perhaps he will help me.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I think that it is very important that an argument which is raised by hon. Members opposite should be to some extent answered from this side. [Interruption.] In addition, if I may allow myself not to be mauled by noises, it is important that if police are to be used in Northern Ireland in a temporary capacity they should know the conditions which they are asked to face. This is what the Amendment is about. They should know that this kind of thing did happen, as has been admitted under oath. I think that they also want to know that they may have to deal with somebody like the hon. Lady, or Member of Parliament, who has said, "I perjured myself by taking the oath of allegiance to the British Queen". This is very important.

The Chairman: Order. This may be perfectly correct, but I am still having great difficulty in understanding what relevance it has to the precise terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Mr. Irving, the Amendment refers clearly to being
satisfied that the conditions of police service in Northern Ireland are broadly comparable in all the circumstances to those obtaining at the time in England and Wales.
I had hoped that I was making it fairly clear that they are not entirely comparable as far as the hon. Lady and her friends are concerned. It is very important that this should be known by the police on both sides. However, I have made the point that I wished to make. It is important that the police should know that they will not get much help or co-operation from people like the hon. Lady, because, as a celebrated reviewer


said on Sunday, the lion. Lady lacks both charity and manners.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. As it is clear that hon. Members opposite are solely concerned to use this debate to make personal smear attacks on the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), would it not be for the convenience of the Committee if all their attacks could be made on one Clause so that we could dispose of the matter and then proceed to discuss the Bill?

The Chairman: Order. That is not a matter with which I can deal.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I shall sit down in a moment, Mr. Irving, having said what I wish to say, by your kindness and indulgence, but, to follow for a moment what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) raised as a point of order, can the truth be called a smear? They were all statements which the hon. Lady had herself made.

Mr. Orme: Not true.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not really addressing himself to the Amendment. I think that we had better get on.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: In addressing myself directly to Amendment No. 2, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), I wish to say at the outset that I welcome without reservation not only the Clause but the Amendment, too. However, I have had a little difficulty in understanding precisely what is meant by paragraph (b) of the Amendment, and, in particular, the words
will not reduce the strength or readiness of the aiding force to such a level as would impair the ability of that force to carry out
its responsibilities.
One of the problems which my hon. Friend rightly highlighted is that certain rather vague words and phrases have been used both on Second Reading and in the Minister of State's reply to the first Amendment today. This is one of the weaknesses in the Amendment as at present drafted. What are we meant to

understand by such phrases as "shall not fall below such a level"? As I understand it, in Britain the assessment of the number of police required is calculated, roughly, on the basis of one to every 5,000 of the population. Is that regarded, or could it be regarded by any future Home Secretary, as the minimum level below which mutual aid should not be offered? I am concerned about this because, although mutual aid can work both ways-the Royal Ulster Constabulary coming over here and British police going to Northern Ireland-in the first analysis it is more likely that the R.U.C. will be the beneficiaries of any assistance.
Although there has been rather glib talk this afternoon and in previous debates about the breakdown of law and order, one must remember that there were insufficient numbers of police in Northern Ireland. Therefore, this question of mutual aid is of real importance not only to the Royal Ulster Constabulary but also to the maintenance of peace in Northern Ireland as a whole.
I should greatly welcome clarification from the Minister of Slate on this point. Can she tell us what she envisages to be the level below which the police in this country, or any area of this country, should not fall if they are to carry out their statutory responsibility? This is tremendously important if we are to have a realistic idea of the sort of mutual aid which would be available.

Sir George Sinclair: I support Amendment No. 2. An assurance is sought from the Home Secretary regarding the disposal of police manpower recruited for service in this country. There is an overall shortage of police in this country in both urban and rural forces, and this at a time when both serious crime and crime in general are mounting.
It is important that the Home Secretary should give an assurance about protecting the forces in this country while meeting the temporary needs of Northern Ireland, and he should commit his Department and the Government, for this reason, to a far more vigorous police recruiting programme. Not only have we a growing commitment to cope with crime here, but we now have an additional commitment to come to the help of Northern Ireland for a certain time. If we are to


honour that obligation, as I believe we should, drastic steps must be taken to help the various police forces in this country make up their own strength in order to cope with crime here.
I spoke today to the chief constable of the county in which my constituency lies. We are considerably below strength. The rise in crime last year was 12 per cent.-and 25 per cent. if one takes only indictable offences-and the rise in crime during the first nine months of this year is calculated to be just over 12 per cent. By his pegging of recruitment a short time ago, the Home Secretary lost the best opportunity this country has ever had of developing the recruiting campaign and, at the same time, providing an outlet for a number of people coming out of the armed Services. He has put a bad block in the way of recruitment, and it will require special effort on his part to get recruitment going again to make up the wastage and to make up the full complement of forces as they should be, with their new obligation to help in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland may not be the only commitment. Often, when close allies have temporary difficulties, it is more appropriate to send police rather than troops in the first instance. We have seen recent examples of that, and I have experience of a time in Cyprus when law and order depended entirely on reinforcement by 600 volunteeers from British police forces, from chief constable right down to fairly newly-joined recruits.
I support the Amendment, therefore, in the hope that the Home Secretary will make a major effort now to face up to the responsibility of seeing that recruitment to British police forces is got under way again with a better momentum than it has had for the last two or three years.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: It seems from some of the speeches, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), that there may be some misconception about what is intended under the Bill. I share the fears expressed by those of my hon. Friends who feel that there might be such demands upon what are called in the Bill the home police forces as to imperil their ability to carry out their function, and they might possibly find themselves in

totally unfamiliar and extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
In what is being done here, as I understand it-the hon. Lady will correct me if I am wrong-there are two essential elements, arising out of the Hunt Report. First, the para-military role shall be taken from the R.U.C. Immediately, this begins to give to the R.U.C. the sort of role which it would have if operating in this country. Part of the process of what one might call the civilianising of the R.U.C. is this Bill, arising directly out of the recommendation of the Hunt Committee:
We have therefore made a number of recommendations which are designed to bring the R.U.C. into full partnership with their colleagues in Great Britain without in any way shifting the responsibility for law and order in the province from the Government of Northern Ireland.
The whole point of the Bill is to make the R.U.C. similar to the police forces of England and Wales. Just as there is interchangeability between those forces, so Northern Ireland should be included in the family. I do not think that anyone envisages an emergency in which there would be an enormous movement of forces from, say, the Metropolitan Police, who would suddenly go over there to deal with a big emergency and remain for a considerable time. They are not in the same position as the military forces. Anything of a para-military nature is in future to be undertaken by the Regular forces, assisted by the Ulster Defence Regiment, which we shall debate later. The whole object is to civilianise the R.U.C.
Thus, whilst I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, and support what underlies his Amendment, I think that it is probably unnecessary.

Mr. James Dempsey: We have had an awful song and dance about the Amendment and the effect it will have on the efficiency of the police forces in Great Britain if the Bill comes into operation.

An Hon. Member: On Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dempsey: I refer to the effect it will have on the efficiency of our police forces as a result of drafting of policemen to Northern Ireland in cases of necessity, I listened to the lengthy speech


of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), but I cannot: recollect hearing any speeches when we drafted the police to Anguilla not so long ago. I also recall the volunteers going to Cyprus at one time.
We must bear in mind the tradition of policing the country, and the country's other responsibilities.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman should get the record straight. Anguilla and Cyprus were operations where the police went under colonial legislation, and those who went were volunteers. The Bill is quite different; what it provides for is direction. There was a long debate on the despatch of policemen to Anguilla, which went through the night. Many hon. Members took part. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not here.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Dempsey: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I was fair and stated that those policemen were volunteers. But he must admit that they went to those parts of the world as volunteers and that they depleted the police force in this country. That is what will happen if they are sent to Northern Ireland. I cannot visualise the occurrence of anything so serious as the hon. Gentleman argues. What surprises me is that he seems to have so little confidence in a chief constable as to think that he will allow his force to be so depleted that its ability to manage the community is impaired, or that he has no confidence in police authorities, thinking that they would allow the situation to get out of hand. He said that he had every confidence in the Home Secretary, but I begin to doubt that. If that happened, the Home Secretary would be a party to drafting police out of the country to such an extent that it would impair the ability of the police authority concerned in its efforts to protect men, women and children, and property.

Mr. Fortescue: There is a very important point here. We have every confidence in the chief constable, but subsection (2) says specifically that the Home Secretary can over-rule him and send men even if the chief constable objects.

Mr. Dempsey: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that he could

never visualise the present Home Secretary or any Home Secretary taking such a step; so what are we arguing about? I have had experience of having to draft policemen to other authorites. I have authorised police to go to the North of England, and I am sure that it will not have been the last time that that is done from my part of the country. We still have police forces that are not nearly so badly off as the law of averages predicts. Before amalgamation in Scotland, our large burgh forces were almost at full strength. Therefore, whilst it is all very well to quote the national average, the proposal in the Bill is acceptable, because there are some forces which are not so badly off and can be utilised for such a purpose. I am very keen that the proposal should be approved. I am very anxious that our forces should have a greater co-ordination than they have had.
I would say to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that I would be very happy if the R.U.C. would wear the uniform blue that we wear in this country. I should be delighted to see that uniformity in the dress of policemen in all parts of the United Kingdom.
I know also every chief constable in Scotland, and some in England, and knowing them and police authorities as I do I am convinced that the last thing they would do would be to impair the efficiency of their own forces and their ability to carry out their duty to protect the community. I am sure that that danger would never arise, and so I hope that we shall approve the Bill and reject the Amendments, which are probably more probing than anything else.
I have no information of any police federation or chief constables association having indicated opposition to the principle in the Bill. I had hoped that some hon. Member opposite would tell me. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has an association with the police, and he should be able to tell us where they have indicated their opposition to the principle.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—

Mr. Dempsey: I have every confidence in police authority chairmen and in police authorities. I do not believe for a moment that they would allow their forces to get into such a state of inefficiency as


the Amendments suggest. The Amendments make mountains out of molehills, and there is no basis for the hon. Gentleman's argument. I cannot visualise a situation such as he fears, because the foremost duty of all our dedicated police officers is to protect the community.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: I understand the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). On taking a close look at the Amendment, I have the impression that the first part suggests that the Home Secretary has not been doing his homework. The Bill should never have been introduced if the British police forces are unable to come to the assistance of the R.U.C. The Bill was presented to the House in a very good spirit, a spirit of give and take, and I would hate to see anything added to it which would stop the British police forces from giving assistance to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Whilst this debate has not had many of the—

Sir D. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. I apologise to the hon. Lady and to the Committee. I had thought that it would be to the convenience of the House and the hon. Lady, and more courteous to her, if I were to speak before her instead of after. When she rose, my attention was momentarily distracted. I wonder whether, in the circumstances, she might feel that it would be better if I were to catch your eye, Mr. Mallalieu.

Mrs. Williams: I had not supposed for a moment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not speak on the Amendment, but of course I give way.

Sir D. Renton: I am much obliged to the hon. Lady and to you, Mr. Mallalieu.
Although we have made it clear that we support the Government's introduction of the Bill, it is our duty as an Opposition to ensure that it is properly designed, that it is right in every principle, including various principal points of detail, and that we have a clear idea of how the Government would propose to use this enabling Bill. It is with that in mind that we should express our gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) for the

way in which he has pinpointed some of the issues which arise and to which he has drawn attention in his Amendments. On Second Reading, it seemed to me that the Government had overlooked some of the matters which arose and which might have been dealt with in the Bill. I hope that, having listened carefully to the debate, the hon. Lady will consider the possibility of Amendments.
I take first the second point which arises from the Amendments; that is to say, writing into the Bill a provision that the powers in Clause I shall not be used in such a way as to reduce the state of readiness in the aiding force, that is, the force in England or Wales, to a level which would impair its ability to carry out its statutory responsibilities to its own police authority.
I am sure that every hon. Member would agree that it is unthinkable that the Home Secretary would compel one of our police forces to send men to Northern Ireland in these circumstances. On the other hand, in view of some of the things written into the Bill, I see no reason why this should not be written into the Bill. A strong case has been made out this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), both of whom rightly referred to the extent to which the police are below establishment with a mounting crime wave. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) reminded us of the pegging of recruitment which has gone on and which, so far as we know, still goes on.
In these circumstances it would surely be of great assurance to police authorities, who, unless a later Amendment is accepted, are not to be consulted before the Home Secretary exercises his powers, to know that their forces' strength will not be reduced so that they cannot carry out their statutory responsibility. This is only common sense and fair, and I hope that we shall have a satisfactory answer on that score.

Mr. John Mendelson: It is difficult to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. I understand that hon. Members opposite should have made constituency points, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks


for half the country. Surely what is envisaged is that if there is an immediate emergency, the Government shall have power to see that men are sent to deal with it. I cannot conceive of the right hon. and learned Gentleman or any of his hon Friends objecting to that when there is an acute emergency. That is all that is required. Surely we can assume that any Home Secretary will exercise his common sense.

Sir D. Renton: I take the point and I will answer it. There may well be an acute emergency which demands members of police forces from England or Wales or even Scotland. However, unknown to the Home Office, there may also be a pending emergency with which an English or Welsh police force has to contend. The Home Office is not the policy authority for the provincial police forces and it does not run them. One of Her Majesty's inspectors visits them once a year, but the Home Office does not know and is not expected by Parliament to know about all the contingencies which provincial forces may have to face. It therefore seems essential that something should be laid down in the Bill about this. Otherwise, it is not fair to the police authorities, which are under a statutory responsibility, placed upon them by Parliament, to maintain an adequate state of readiness.
I come, secondly, to the first issue raised by the Amendments, that concerning the conditions of police service in Northern Ireland. I hope that it will be helpful if we distinguish between the conditions in which the police have to serve and the conditions on which the police have to serve. This is a valid distinction, and it has been somewhat confused in this debate.
I have great sympathy with the Government when they are asked to write into the Bill the stipulation that the Home Secretary must be satisfied about the conditions in which the police have to serve, as they have been described by hon. Members. It would be placing a great impediment on the Home Secretary in doing what was considered to be necessary if that were written into the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that political conditions in Northern Ireland were different

from those in Great Britain. They may remain different for a long time. Indeed, we must face the paradox that it is partly because they are so different that this help may be needed from Great Britain. I sympathise with the Government about that.
I also sympathise with them on the issue of the different laws which apply in Northern Ireland. After all, we have no reciprocal arrangements between Scotland and England and Wales about this; there are two different legal systems. That may or may not be the reason why a Conservative Government did not make reciprocal arrangements—the law has to be administered in different circumstances. The criminal procedures north and south of the Border are different, and different training for those procedures is needed.
It so happens that the laws of Northern Ireland derive mainly from the laws of England and Wales in criminal matters and not from the law of Scotland. I make that point in case someone says that it would be much easier for a constable from England or Wales to go to Northern Ireland than it would be for a constable from Scotland. That may be so, but we cannot legislate on that basis in the context of the Bill.
Nevertheless, there is another difficulty. It may be a purely technical difficulty, but it raises a question of principle which I mentioned on Second Reading. This is the difficulty which somewhat confuses the issue, because it is derived both from the different conditions in which constables will serve and the different conditions on which they will serve. As I did on Second Reading, I invite the attention of hon. Members to the form of attestation which appears in the Second Schedule to the Police Act, 1964—there is an equivalent form for Scotland.
On oath, the officer says that while he continues to hold the office of constable, he will to the best of his skill and ability discharge all the duties thereof faithfully "according to law". The Police Act, 1964, in its relationship to England and Wales does not define the word "law", but we have to assume that the jurisdiction of constables as set out in Section 19 of that Act gives us the clue to this and that the constable's oath therefore refers only to the performance of his


duties in England and Wales, Section 19(1) says:
A member of a police force shall have all the powers and privileges of a constable throughout England and Wales.
That is the only clue to the meaning of the word "law" in the statutory form of attestation.
I therefore have to ask the hon. Lady whether she assumes that the statutory attestation, oath of allegiance, which a constable in England and Wales will have taken is sufficient to bind him to carry out his duties in Northern Ireland even to the extent that in Northern Ireland the law may be different in some respects.
6.0 p.m.
We have to face the fact that the law of Northern Ireland is different in some respects, although broadly of the same origin, from the law of England and Wales. For the sake of clarity, we should be told by the Government why no Amendment is necessary or else be told that the Government will consider making an Amendment.

Mr. Dempsey: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, will he explain his attitude to the oath of allegiance taken by an officer in Scotland?

Sir D. Renton: This is indeed a most interesting point. However, Mr. Mallalieu, I have endeavoured to keep within the terms of order as defined by this Amendment. I transgressed a little, but you did not stop me. It was convenient that I should make the point about non-interchangeability between England and Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. What I have said with regard to the attestation of constables in England and Wales applies with equal force to the attestation of constables in Scotland.

Mr. Orme: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks as if Northern Ireland is separated from the United Kingdom. As Northern Ireland is constituted it is part of Great Britain, and while different rules apply under Scottish law, so they must under Northern Ireland law, as that exists. It is still part of the United Kingdom, not an independent territory in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman treats it.

Sir D. Renton: It would be wrong for me to take up the time of the Committee in enlightening the hon. Gentleman about the way in which the police forces within the United Kingdom—and there are a great many, divided into roughly three groups—are treated by Parliament in different statutes and made in effect into separate entities. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.
Returning to the suggestion in paragraph (a) of the Amendment, I doubt whether much difficulty will arise over pay and conditions of service, because with the help of the Police Federations in the different countries I would have thought that this will be largely assimilated. The Bill has some cross-references to the different pension regulations, but we are entitled to an assurance from the hon. Lady about what the Government envisage with regard to the Police Discipline Regulations, which are an important part of the conditions of service in the sense of the conditions on which the police officer serves. If we can have those assurances it will enable us to make progress.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Before my right hon. and learned Friend moves from the Discipline Regulations, will he take note that under Clause 2(3) of the Bill this matter arises again and it may well be that when the Minister comes to introduce that Clause we can go into it in greater detail.

Sir D. Renton: I did realise that and that is why I referred to cross-references within the Bill. Let me repeat the suggestion I made on Second Reading. I find it rather paradoxical that, whereas Clause 2 appears to deal solely with volunteers for secondment for long periods, and rightly confines it to volunteers, Clause 1, dealing with secondment, for short periods for emergencies, appears to omit the possibility of volunteers being employed. If volunteers were employed the point made by my hon. Friend, especially with regard to the conditions inpolice officers serve, would be met, because the volunteer would not mind—he would know what he was going into.
May we be told why volunteers have been omitted from Clause 1 and that the Government will keep an open mind about writing into the Bill at some stage


a proviso enabling volunteers to be sent? There sire special conditions in Northern Ireland, and we all want things to get better there—with the help of the Government of Northern Ireland and of this Parliament. We should not live in a state of unreality, because, however well things go, there will still be things which an; different in Northern Ireland from what they are in England and Wales, just as things are different in England and Wales from what they are in Scotland, and we have no interchangeability south of the Border.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Committee is perhaps reading a great deal more into this Bill than is to be found there. There was a considerable shaft of light from my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who seemed to grasp exactly what the Bill was about. May I try to help the Committee by distinguishing three things?
First, what the situation would be where there was a very short-term additional demand of the kind to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has referred; second, where there was a medium-term demand; and, third, where there was a long-term demand. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with the situation where there is a very short-term demand indeed.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Where does it say that?

Mrs. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman would allow me to define this a little more closely, it is to deal with a very short-term demand because the Bill is based, in every instance, as closely as is possible upon the arrangements that exist and have worked between police forces in England and Wales. These arrangements have been in being since 1890.

Sir G. Sinclair: Sir G. Sinclair rose—

Mrs. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue. They were re-expressed in the Police Act, 1964, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have had considerable experience of the way in which these arrangements worked out. What is envisaged for Northern Ireland is quite simply an extension of the type of arrangements that

are made as between the forces of England and Wales at present.

Sir G. Sinclair: Sir G. Sinclair rose—

Mrs. Williams: If both hon. Gentlemen will hold their horses, they will find that I am trying to answer their questions in the course of what I have to say. It is not the purpose of this Bill to deal with a situation in which an emergency occurs again in Northern Ireland and in which the present emergency continues. There are already British armed forces in Northern Ireland for this purpose, and, clearly, they cannot be withdrawn until the situation changes. If the situation were to become as difficult as it has been in the last few months, troops would once again be required From that point of view we are not envisaging the use of a police force for what might be described as an emergency lasting either weeks or months.
There is a long-term situation in which the police force emerges as being too weak in manpower for the job that as a police force it can be called upon to do It is not the purpose of this Bill to be able to avoid the situation in which the Royal Ulster Constabulary had to man its forces beyond its present establishment, should that emerge as necessary, nor for that matter, I assure hon. Gentlemen from England and Wales, does it stand in lieu of a position in which police forces in England and Wales have to be built up beyond their present strength. I would ask the Committee, because we shall make progress if we understand this, to see the Bill for what it is intended—as, essentially a measure of short-term mutual aid.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—

Mrs. Williams: I am coming to that, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself. I intend to make my speech no longer than his.
I shall deal later with the question of the special situations to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but we define "short-term"—and clearly I cannot define it more closely—as a matter of days and not weeks and, in most cases, as a matter of hours. I have tried to help the Committee by giving precise examples of the sort of situations which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary envisages—a


football match, a royal procession, a particular demonstration. In these situations one is talking about an instance or something of which one knows beforehand—a particular engagement. Should it emerge after that demonstration that we face a situation of civil commotion in Northern Ireland, clearly the Bill will not meet that need, and nobody thinks that it will.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful for what the hon. Lady is saying, but would she accept that we are legislating not her assurances but a Statute? Surely what counts in the end is not what she says but what the law says. I have said to her that the law as we are asked to pass it does not include her assurances.

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, probably better than I do, that exactly this phraseology is used in the existing Act, which works perfectly well, and that the final decision on the extent to which the assurances which I am giving turn out to be true will depend as much on those he represents and their leaders, the chief constables, as upon my right hon. Friend. I will come to that later. I thought that the hon. Gentleman suggested that far more power lay in the hands of my right hon. Friend and far less lay in the discretion of chief constables than is the case under the present legislation and is likely to be the case under this Bill.
The second broad point which I want to make—I apologise for detaining the Committee, but this may be helpful when we come to later Clauses—is that we find ourselves in a dilemma. It is a dilemma not only of the Government Front Bench but of the whole Committee; namely, that we want to do two things which can be achieved only by striking a balance between them. One is that the Committee does not want to deplete the forces in England and Wales, and that view is shared by my right hon. Friend. We do not wish to impose, nor will we impose, demands on the police forces of England and Wales whose first responsibility must be to the people of England and Wales and not to anybody else.
I think that the Committee overlooks the fact that it is the chief constables, in the first instance, who will make agreements with the Inspector-General of the

Royal Ulster Constabulary, or whoever is appointed in his place. Therefore, it is for the chief constables to decide whether they can carry out their responsibilities to their own police authorities before making any agreement to send forces to Northern Ireland. Equally it will be for the Inspector-General of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to decide whether he can carry out his responsibilities to Northern Ireland before providing police forces to assist the police forces in England or Wales. I stress that, because it was overlooked in the debate.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Coatbridge and Airdrie and Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) pointed out, if the House of Commons finds itself unable to put any trust in the discretion of chief constables it should not have passed the Police Act, 1964, which gives them exactly the same discretion. The Bill neither adds to nor takes away from the discretion which has been in existence in this country for very many years.

Sir D. Renton: The hon. Lady keeps speaking about the discretion of chief constables. Would she point out where that discretion is referred to in Clause 1?

Mrs. Williams: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at Clause 1(1), he will see that:
the chief officer of police of a police force maintained under the Metropolitan Police Act … may, on the application of the Inspector General of the Royal Ulster Constabulary … provide constables or other assistance …".

Sir D. Renton: This is such an important point that I must press it. The relevant point is that in subsection (2), which gives the Home Secretary power to direct, neither the chief constable nor the police authority has to be consulted and they could be directed against their will or against the advice which they have given to the Home Secretary.

Mrs. Williams: One of the difficulties about giving way is that one always finds oneself asked about parts of a speech which one has not reached. I am pointing to subsection (1), to which Amendment 2 is totally devoted, and not to Amendment 7, which concerns that section of the Bill dealing with the Home Secretary's powers. Amendment 2 deals wholly with the powers of chief constables. That is what I am dealing with, not with Amendment 7.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Why claim that we did not deal with it?

6.15 p.m.

Mrs. Williams: I will deal with Amendment 7, if the Committee will allow me to get to it. But I am sure that hon. Members expect me first to deal with Amendment 2. It seems logical to take Amendment 2 first and Amendment 7 second.
The point which I wanted to make concerns the second objective of the Bill from which the Committee cannot divorce itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) pointed out that, for a moment, there was a slight tone of isolationism in this debate. Northern Ireland is, and has been for some time, part of the United Kingdom. As part of the United Kingdom, and therefore as part of these mutual aid arrangements, we have a responsibility to Northern Ireland.
Part of that responsibility, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Government at Stormont have accepted, is that the successor to the Ulster Special Constabulary shall be a division between an armed regiment and a police constabulary which will in turn support the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which will no longer be armed. This is to bring the Royal Ulster Constabulary very much closer to the conditions which apply to English and Welsh police forces, and I should have expected both sides of the Committee strongly to support it. But, as Lord Hunt and his Committee pointed out, we cannot expect the Royal Ulster Constabulary to do this without any support whatsoever from the police forces of England and Wales in respect of training and all the other conditions which apply to the English and Welsh police forces.
Therefore, we must draw a balance between the dangers of running down police forces in Britain, to which I shall come in a moment, but which, I stress, will be largely the responsibility of chief constables to decide, and the desire to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary in its new rôle.
I turn to the points raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. He pointed to what I know to be the fears of many police forces in this country.

As he very fairly said, they are concerned about some conditions which they might encounter if called upon to help in Northern Ireland. We can deal with one of them right away. These Amendments apply to that part of the Bill concerned with mutual aid, not to that part concerned with secondment on a voluntary basis. Therefore, the discipline which applies to them will be the discipline of their own police forces and not of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That is one clear point which arises on a later Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept what I have said.
The hon. Gentleman made the point that in the past the Royal Ulster Constabulary had been something of a paramilitary force. Part of the object of the Bill and of the Hunt Committee and, I am glad to say, of the Northern Ireland Government is that that shall cease to be so. It is already rapidly ceasing to be so, as the fact that unarmed patrols are taking place in almost all the trouble spots in Northern Ireland suggests very strongly. So part of the point made by the hon. Gentleman has already been met.
Of the hon. Gentleman's five points, one does not arise and two have so far been met—I will not say that they will always be met, but they have now been met by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Of the two that remain, one is on the Special Powers Act, and I will ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to deal with this on a later Amendment where it arises more precisely. The other is the danger of communal violence. If there should be a situation in which it appears that the police forces from England and Wales were required for any considerable length of time, this would not be met by the Bill.
May I come now to the point which the hon. Gentleman raised about the procedure under which the Bill operates. I think he will agree with me that the whole of Amendment No. 2, which deals with Clause 1(1), is a matter on which he does not need any reassurance because the matter lies in the judgment of police constables. The chief constable is probably in a better position than anybody else, together with the rank and file of his police force with whom he discusses these matters, to know the extent to which it will weaken his force should he allow any members of it to go. Clause 1(1) accepts


that, if he feels he cannot release any men because his force is under strength, nobody will ask him to do so.
Proviso (a) in the Amendment would. I think, formalise the situation. It is an unnecessary strengthening of the discretion the chief constable already has, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman has in mind one particular situation in which the chief constable is not wholly familiar with the conditions that appertain on a given day, week or month in Northern Ireland. The Amendment suggests that the chief constable would not necessarily be able to get that information quickly for that force, because it includes the phrase
to the best of his knowledge".
On this narrow point concerning the political conditions in Northern Ireland, we shall be asking chief constables, in advice to them on the Bill, to consult the inspectors of constabulary and the Home Office about any situation in which they are approached for mutual aid which they believe has political repercussions, that is to say, which is associated with conditions in Northern Ireland other than the conditions, which they themselves can judge, concerning the strength of their own force.
I am sorry to have to be dragged into this but, while my right hon. Friend and I would like to see police recruitment rise much more rapidly, especially in some under-manned areas, it will not do for the Opposition to keep on suggesting that in some strange way the strength of the police force was very great when they were in office and has been much less ever since. As I have said before in the House, the truth of the matter is that the average recruitment figures under this Government have been about 50 per cent. better than they were under the previous Conservative Government.

Mr. Carlisle: The Minister of State made this point on Second Reading and has made it again today. She said that she did not want to be drawn into this but, having made the point, may I put this to her. The complaint from the Opposition has always been that in 1967 recruitment into the provincial police force went up by 3,004, but at the end of 1967 the Home Secretary put a limitation on recruitment into the police force, and in 1968 there was a reduction of

about 230 and there has been a further reduction this year. Our comment has always been, as we warned him at the time, that the curb on recruitment into the police force would cause the reduction which is now occurring.

Mrs. Williams: My figures and those of the hon. Gentleman are not quite the same. My figures show an increase for this year, a very small increase for last year and a much larger increase than he mentioned for 1967, so perhaps we had better pursue this matter through Parliamentary Questions.

Mr. Carlisle: If the figure for 1968 for the provincial police force is wrong, will the hon. Lady tell me what is the correct figure? These are figures which I have used before in the House and which were obtained from the reports for the constabulary. The figure for 1968 shows that there was a total loss of 237 as against an increase in 1967 of 3,004. If those figures are wrong, will the hon. Lady please say what are the right figures?

Mrs. Williams: I think the hon. Gentleman and I are arguing about different figures, he about the provincial forces and I about the English and Welsh, forces. I did not catch the qualification he made. Nevertheless, the figures in no way deny the points I have made, or the fact that the police force is now 10,000 stronger than it was when we came into office.
May I now turn to the powers of the Home Secretary with which the hon. Gentleman was so much concerned. Clause 1(2) is perfectly in line with a similar power in the Police Act. The Home Secretary under the Police Act has powers in certain circumstances to ask a force to give mutual aid because the first type of procedure has not operated. The hon. Gentleman knows better than almost anybody that this is for reasons of speed. It may in certain circumstances not be possible for anybody, without the central communications system of my right hon. Friend and of the Home Office, to get aid quickly enough. Only through the Home Office and the inspectors of constabulary can one quickly ascertain where there are police forces of a good strength and with the capacity to lend men quickly.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept from me that the purpose of subsection (2) is identical with the purpose in the Police Act, and if we did not have this it would be necessary to work our way through police forces all over the country. He will be as aware as I am that mutual aid systems have not been fully worked out for amalgamated police forces, and I ask him to realise that this is in no way different from what already exists.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—

Mrs. Williams: I will give way in a moment.
In any situation in which subsection (2) applied, the chief constable would be approached by my right hon. Friend. If the chief constable pointed out that his force was under strength, it would be a most unusual situation, and one I cannot imagine, for him to be directed to do this. The sole purpose of subsection (2) is to permit the Home Secretary, where forces are required very quickly, to get on to all the chief constables who might be able to assist.
I ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to think very seriously before pressing the removal of this subsection, which already exists as a guarantee for police forces in England and Wales.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Lady's handsome assurance is most welcome and I accept it. Will she deal with my other point, namely, that the Home Secretary surely has a duty to satisfy himself that the conditions into which he may, with all the safeguards the Minister has given, be sending British policemen are broadly comparable to those under which they volunteered to work when they joined the force?

Mrs. Williams: I do not think that I can go very much further than my right hon. Friend went on Second Reading, when he said that Clause 1 will not be brought into force unless the conditions in Northern Ireland approximate to those in England and Wales. I have tried to put this precisely. I have taken every one of the hon. Gentleman's conditions and I have shown him that two have already been satisfied. I have shown him that it is no longer a para-military force, that it is no longer using arms and that the disciplinary conditions do not apply.

The hon. Gentleman is still pressing the remaining issue of what might be communal violence, and I have told him that I will deal with that point later in Committee. I do not think that I can be expected to go further.
The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) made great play of the tremendous demands which the Bill puts on the forces in England and Wales, and spoke of what he described as a first power to send police forces across the water, as if we were talking about Greenland or the Falkland Islands. But we are not. We are speaking about a part of the United Kingdom that is separated from us by a few miles of sea. Indeed, we are closer to it by air than Northumberland was from London in the 1890s when the powers were first brought in.
The Committee must appreciate that the aeroplane has been invented. In consequence, it would probably be more sensible and much quicker for the Metropolitan Police, or possibly the Surrey police with access to Gatwick, to send a police force to Northern Ireland than for the police of Bootle which seems to be a constant feature of our debates, or indeed of Liverpool, which would probably be one of the forces on which we would not insist in helping in this respect.
We have seen a strange caricature of my right hon. Friend insisting on drawing all his additional police forces from Liverpool and Bootle, despite the fact that they appear to be rather less well-manned than almost any other police force in the country, insisting on sending them by sea and train, even in an emergency, when presumably they ought to go by air, and insisting on doing so in face of the total opposition of the individual chief constables.
This is a travesty of what is likely to happen, and in view of the assurances I have given, I ask the Committee to resist the Amendments.

6.30 p.m.

Sir D. Renton: We are obliged to the Minister of State for some of the assurances she has given. But both on Second Reading and again today I pointed to the difficulty of attestation of police constables, and on neither occasion have I received a reply on that point. It may be that there is no substance in the point, but


I should like to know the answer. Furthermore, why is it that Clause 1 does not envisage the possibility of volunteers?

Mrs. Williams: On the point about volunteers, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that we do not wish to make any difference between the relationships in Northern Ireland and those which apply in England and Wales. Therefore, volunteering is kept for secondment. We do not want to bring about any difference in respect of mutual aid.
With regard to the legal point raised about the powers of an English constable, an English constable can already operate in Scotland despite the different laws of that country because the force of the attestation in the Home Office is that he will apply the law without fear or favour. This does not mean that normally he would be expected to apply in detail a law with which he is not familiar.

Sir D. Renton: The hon. Lady referred to an English constable applying the law in relation to Scotland. Is she saying that the same would apply to Northern Ireland? When an English constable goes to Northern Ireland, does the statutory oath in the attestation bind him to apply the law as it is there, bearing in mind that he undertakes to apply "the law"?

Mrs. Williams: This point arises more particularly on Amendment No. 8. Perhaps I can discuss it when that Amendment is taken.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the handsome and forthcoming assurances given by the Minister of State, I beg leave to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. As the Minister properly pointed out, what is at issue is the discretion of the chief constable. She has met my objections and I accept her assurances.
However, although I shall not press Amendment No. 7, I would draw attention to something said by the Minister which was extremely important. The original phrase used by the Home Secretary was that the Act would be brought into effect only when conditions in Northern Ireland approximated more

closely to those in England and Wales than has been the case in recent years.
But instead of using that phrase, instead of the phrase used by the Minister of State herself at the beginning of her speech, namely, that conditions should be more similar to those in England and Wales than they have been, she has now substituted what, in my view, is a very much better phrase. She has said that the legislation will be brought into effect when the conditions in Northern Ireland approximate to the conditions that exist in this country. That is a most satisfactory assurance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 1, after 'State', insert 'on his own initiatives or'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment, I suggest that it may be convenient to take Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 2, after 'Ireland', insert:
'or by report from the authority responsible for the immediate control of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or otherwise'.

Mr. Rose: I hope to be a little more economical in moving the Amendment than was the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who took a total of 45 minutes over very little indeed. I listened with a great deal of patience to what most hon. Members will agree was the obvious. Indeed, we have had to put up with a debate on the obvious for almost three hours.
I am moving this Amendment for the reason that I am more impressed by the Home Secretary and the Minister of State on my own Front Bench than I am with successive Ministers of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland. I have more faith in their judgment as to the necessity for sending police forces from this country to Northern Ireland than I have in the political maturity of past Ministers of Home Affairs on the other side of the Irish Sea. I was most impressed with the reply to the debate last week by my hon. Friend which contained many assurances in a brilliant exposition of the purpose of the Bill.
We are, in this Amendment, dealing with mutual aid. I would stress the important point of the overriding authority


of this House and of the Home Secretary—hon. Members opposite appear to have missed this point—with regard to many matters pertaining to Northern Ireland, in particular to the Northern Ireland police and the secondment of police to Northern Ireland from this country.
I have little confidence in the Northern Ireland Home Office because of incidents which have occurred in the past. I feel that it would be in order to explain why I have little confidence in them. In an interview in 1965 with the then Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. McConnell, he was able to give me a firm assurance that it would not be long before the Special Powers Act was ended and all the trouble in Northern Ireland was over. This was the sober, mature, political judgment of a Home Affairs Minister in Northern Ireland, who, apparently, could not see the writing on the wall. He was unable to see the inevitable demand for civil rights that would occur in a State in which those rights were denied to a large part of the population. I have little confidence in that particular Minister.
Mr. Long had two short periods as Home Secretary, and I will not deal with him. But we now have a gentleman Called Mr. Porter, who seems to be in the habit of doing rather curious things. For example, he invites people to join a force that does not exist and spends money on advertisements to join this non-existent force. This matter will be discussed in more detail on a more important Bill which will shortly be before the House.
I should like to deal with one point which was put, quite correctly, by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. There is a difference in conditions in Northern Ireland in regard to extra-constitutional opposition. I have a quotation about the extra-constitutional opposition which says:
Information which has come to hand in the last few days makes it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens is threatened by a very dangerous conspiracy, prepared at any time to use murder as a weapon. This we cannot and will not tolerate.
It goes on to describe it as
… a sordid conspiracy of criminals prepared to take up arms against unprotected fellow-citizens.
That was a speech of the then Ulster Prime Minister, Captain Terence O'Neill,

on 28th June, referring to the Ulster Volunteer Force.
We on this side of the Committee are aware that there is and has been for many years an unconstitutional opposition in Northern Ireland. As far back as 1914, the illegal Ulster Volunteer Force of 85,000 men, drilled and equipped with 20,000 rifles, landed at Larne. We know that we are dealing with unconstitutional forces. We know, too, that in those circumstances we have to take stringent preventive measures, one of which will be debated later.
At the moment, we are discussing the mutual aid which is to be given by our police forces which, for all their faults, are among the most tolerant in the world. We have every reason to be proud of them. We are injecting them into a situation which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds described in his speech of over 40 minutes as being very different from that in this country.
However, there is one important difference now. There will be no B Specials to act as a provocation. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) has talked about the situation prevailing there. Let us be happy to say that that situation no longer prevails. We are now discussing a force which does not carry arms and which will not be a sectarian one—

Mr. Gerard Fitt: We hope.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Mr. Rose: In this Bill we are discussing the police force. My hon. Friend will be considering those other matters when we come to discuss the next Bill, no doubt. This force is to be a non-sectarian one—

Captain Orr: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that, as at present constituted, the Royal Ulster Constabulary is a sectarian force?

Mr. Rose: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has misunderstood me, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). At the moment, we are discussing the Ulster police and not the volunteer force. The comparisons are as between the Ulster Volunteer Force and the former B Specials on the one side


and our police forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the other. We know about the magic 11 per cent. of the minority community in the R.U.C. We know about that force and its exploits, the battle of Burntollet and the rest of it, and we know that it contained no members of the minority community.
There was a sectarian force in existence at that time. That sectarian force is being taken out of the situation. The situation is being defused, not because my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, who was referred to by the hon. Member for Londonderry—

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I find difficulty in relating the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Amendment that he is proposing, which is to insert the words "on his own initiatives or".

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Rose: I was finding a certain amount of difficulty myself, Mr. Gourlay. All this arose as the result of an intervention from the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). It is not a matter on which I intended to stray.
My point is that we are now dealing with a situation which has been defused because of the elimination of the sectarian force. However, we are still relying on men whose political judgment has been gravely at fault, after repeated warnings. Present in this Chamber are four hon. Members who were in Northern Ireland two and a half years ago. I refer to my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller), Salford, West (Mr. Orme), Belfast, West, and myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, above all, broke through the convention and has been largely responsible for this debate today because of what happened two and a half years ago.
We are still relying on men in Northern Ireland who have not heeded the many warnings to them, and, therefore, their political judgment is suspect. Only last week, their actions were exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). That again makes me wonder whether they can be relied upon to know when and whether British police should go to Northern Ireland.
I do not want to stray beyond the bounds of order, but in dealing with the situation the hon. Member for Londonderry seems to overlook the fact that we are now entering a new period where the essential element of provocation represented by the B Specials has been taken out of the situation.
The provocation was never in the shape of my hon. Friend the Minister for Mid-Ulster. To hear the hon. Member for Londonderry talk about her, one would think that she is a Sherman tank rather than a young girl—

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. If these remarks are in order, will it be in order to defend the former Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland and the B Specials?

Mr. Michael McGuire: The hon Gentleman will have a job on.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is in order to make incidental references, but I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) will relate his remarks more specifically to the Amendment that we are discussing.

Mr. Rose: If I stray beyond the bounds of order, it is only because prior to your taking the Chair, Mr. Gourlay, remarks which were regarded as within the bounds of order were made by the hon. Member for Londonderry—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The remarks were made on another Amendment, not on this Amendment.

Mr. Rose: They were made on another Amendment, when there was even less cause for them.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not cast any reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Rose: I take back any reflection which I may have been thought to be passing on the Chair. There is no reflection on the Chair, but perhaps there is on hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Police are preferable to troops. Our police forces come within the province of the Home Office, and on many occasions the presence of unarmed policemen rather than of troops or an armed force has prevented violence. We know that if and when the embryonic armed force which we are to debate later comes into


existence, it will not deal with civilian problems, riots, football matches, and the rest of it. Police are preferable. Unarmed police are even more preferable, and the control of them from Westminster, whether or not demanded by the Northern Ireland Home Secretary, is the matter with which this Amendment is concerned.
It asks that we depend no longer on the political judgment of people in Stormont who have so badly misjudged the situation as to allow it to get to the point where several thousand British troops have had to be sent there. More and more, we are having to debate these matters in the House, sometimes, I fear, to the exclusion of matters concerning England, Scotland and Wales. Those in Stormont have handled the situation badly, yet we are still to consult them, still to ask the opinion of the Porters, the McConnells and even the Craigs before we decide whether it is necessary for our impartial police forces to be injected into the situation.
It is for that reason that I want very strong assurances from my hon. Friend. So far, she has kept me happy with the Bill and has responded to the points which have been put to her. We want assurances that we will not yield up one jot of our authority to men whose past actions have not only been immature and irresponsible, but punitive, towards their minority communities. They have denied people their rights, and they have persisted in a policy of suppression which has brought us to the unhappy point where we have large numbers of troops in Northern Ireland.
If British policemen are sent to carry out any arduous task—and here I sympathise with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds—I suggest that it should be on the basis of a decision taken by the responsible authorities at Westminster, namely, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; not merely on the advice and demand of the Minister for Home Affairs at Stormont. I think that the House of Commons now has a healthy disregard for many of the decisions that have been taken in that place by successive Ministers for Home Affairs. Although some way has been travelled under Captain O'Neill, and possibly under Mr. Chichester-Clark, to alleviate some of the feelings in Northern Ireland, what

happened last week with Mr. Porter has put the clock back and we can no longer have confidence in their judgment.
I place greater confidence in the judgment of my right hon. Friend and of this House. I should like to be assured that my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend will have overriding authority in deciding when and whether British policemen go to the assistance of the Northern Ireland police when there is a seconding under the Bill.
Nothing in the Amendment is at variance with the spirit of the Bill. I emphasise, as I am sure my hon. Friends will—and any Unionist should emphasise it as well—that the power is here, not in Stormont. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should make the decision.

Dr. Miller: Before my hon. Friend sits down, would he agree that the experience of this House in the past has been that only on occasions like this are the Northern Ireland Government forced into asking for assistance from this country? Should we not accept the golden opportunity that we have in this Parliament to insert into the Bill provisions which will make it absolutely certain that we do not have to wait until, by some roundabout method somewhat late in the day, the Northern Ireland Government are made to do something about it?

Mr. Rose: My hon. Friend reflects my thoughts on this subject.
Several thousand British troops went to Northern Ireland. Had they not gone, I fear that the Bogside would not exist today. I suggest that we should not abdicate our residual power and that we should no longer tolerate a situation, as my hon. Friend has pointed out so well, where we have to rely on the judgment of people in Northern Ireland who, for one reason or another, do not want the police at a time when it is patently obvious to us that they are needed.
I come now to my final point. We on this side accept the Bill. We think that it is basically good. Injecting British policemen into Northern Ireland can do nothing but good, because they will help to professionalise the force and improve its methods. In the final analysis, many hon. Members would not like to see a situation where the decision to send


troops rested upon shoulders which in the past have not borne up to the strain of running that society in Northern Ireland which has come on to such a tragic collision course recently and in which only the intervention of the House of Commons and our soldiers has saved it from civil strife of a kind that has not been known in the British Isles for half a century.
I do not want to see that happen again. I want the House of Commons to have control.

Mr. McMaster: I do not intend to detain the Committee long in replying to the irresponsible speech by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). The hon. Gentleman made a number of allegations, totally without foundation, against former Ministers of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland. I oppose his suggestions in the Amendment.
The troubles in Northern Ireland could occur elsewhere. There have been occasions when similar rioting has taken place in Great Britain. One has only to read of the vandalism on trains, and so on, after football matches to realise the kind of trouble that can exist in any part of the United Kingdom when a hostile, malicious crowd of vandals give way, in this permissive age, and are not adequately checked by the police.
Northern Ireland has a police force of just over 3,000 men. Therefore, there can be occasions, as happened in Londonderry, when a small element in the community can plan, for seditious reasons, to upset the authority of the police.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously contending that the activities of vandals at or after football matches are in any way comparable with the tragedy of Northern Ireland in recent months?

Mr. McMaster: I suggest that there is the same malicious element behind both types of vandalism. Therefore, to that extent the situation is comparable. The difference does not lie in the inefficiency of various Ministers of Home Affairs. Throughout the history of Ireland, and more recently since 1920, there has existed a group of people determined, by foul means or fair, to upset the con-

stitutional status of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) have admitted time and again that their aim is to establish a Socialist Republic—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. McMaster: I apologise, Mr. Gourlay. I will leave that line of thought. I wanted to adduce sufficient facts before the Committee to answer the charges that have been made by the hon. Member for Blackley.
I agree that the state of affairs that existed in Northern Ireland during August cannot be tolerated in any part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I welcome the main provisions of the Bill. To suggest that these conditions have occurred as a result of deficiency on the part of the Government of Northern Ireland is a misstatement of the truth. Therefore, I feel that the main suggestion of the hon. Member for Blackley, that the Home Secretary is in a better position than the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland to decide whether help is required, is totally unfounded. The Minister of Home Affairs is responsible for keeping law and order in Northern Ireland. He is better informed about the current situation in Ulster and, therefore, he is in the best position to judge whether help in any circumstances is required. I therefore feel that these two Amendments which are designed to weaken the authority of the Minister of Home Affairs should be resisted.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Fitt: As these two Amendments are being taken together, it will come as no surprise to the Committee to know that I vehemently support my hon. Friend's Amendment, and perhaps he will return the compliment when we come to Amendment No. 4.
Although there is no wordy formula In the Amendments, it is worth considering the fears which have moved us to table them. I listened to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) attempting to go outside the bounds of order to apologise for the actions of Ministers of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland.
Both my Amendment and that in the name of my hon. Friend are designed to


ensure that where the Home Secretary is convinced that there is a need to send British policemen to Northern Ireland he shall be permitted to do so without consulting the Minister of Home Affairs We want to ensure that he can do that on his own initiative, or else that he can go over the head of the Minister of Home Affairs and request advice from whatever authority is in charge of the police.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) will agree with me in his conscience, if not openly, when I say that at the moment we have in Northern Ireland a Minister of Home Affairs who is regarded as one of the most liberal Ministers to hold that office since the inception of the State of Northern Ireland. I am certain, too, that I shall have silent agreement by some hon. Gentlemen opposite when I say that his Parliamentary Secretary is one of the most illiberal Members that we have ever had in that country.
I refer to none other than Mr. John Taylor, who represents South Tyrone. He is regarded not only in Northern Ireland, but in this part of the United Kingdom, as one of the most hard-line, vicious exponents of extreme Right-wing Unionism. He is a total embarrassment to the Prime Minister and to all those Members of his party who, against the most violent opposition, are trying to bring about reforms.
We know that the present constitution of the Northern Ireland Parliament is something of a compromise. After the last election, when the pressure went on from this House on the Northern Ireland Parliament to bring in reforms, rather belatedly the present Prime Minister was forced to bring some extreme Right wingers of the Unionist Party into his Government, such as Captain John Brooke, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, and the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. John Taylor.
The possibility is always present of an overnight change. I am sure that I have the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent Northern Ireland constituencies when I say that there is opposition at the moment to Mr. Porter, the present Minister of Home Affairs, retaining his position. One has only to read the pages

of the Paisley Protestant Telegraph to see that in every publication there is a call for the removal of the present Minister of Home Affairs. The question that we ask is who will replace Mr. Porter if he is removed from that office. It seems that the natural line of succession is the present Parliamentary Secretary, and one can envisage what would happen then.
We would find this office, which controls law and order and justice in Northern Ireland, revolving on a Paisley axis. What then would be the position of the police in Northern Ireland? In those circumstances, would the Minister of Home Affairs apply to my right hon. Friend for British police to be despatched to Northern Ireland? I think that the safeguard for which we are asking is the least that we can expect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) drew attention to the characteristics of former Ministers of Home Affairs. Their names readily come to mind. I think of the present Minister of Development in Northern Ireland who held that office some years ago. He permitted an Orange, bigoted sectarian march to take place through the Longstone Road, a Catholic area. When the inhabitants objected to that provocative march, the Minister mobilised the police force and said, "You are going to march through, and I am going to lead you through this politically opposed district."
I think, next, of his successor, who is now a member of the judiciary of Northern Ireland. He was then the Member for Lame. He permitted the same type of provocative march to take place through Dungaven. Those men held the office of Minister for Home Affairs. My hon. Friend referred to Brian McConnell. He, too, permitted provocative marches to take place through politically opposed districts or territories as we know them in Northern Ireland.
Another man who was Minister of Home Affairs is now a Cabinet Minister. I am thinking of Captain Long, the Member for Ards, who, at the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) was engaged on the march to Burntollett allowed the marchers to be beaten viciously by armed mobs, and gave them no protection.


Paisley and Bunting, whom everyone despises, had a long talk with the then Minister of Home Affairs, who then appeared on television and said that he had had a fruitful discussion with them. This was at the very time when such a holocaust was taking place at Burntollett. That is why we object to my right hon. Friend having to wait for advice from the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland.
I have no intention of departing from the terms of the Amendments, but the hon. Member for Belfast, East has taken the opportunity this afternoon to point the finger of scorn at the people in the Bogside and Derry and to charge them with throwing petrol bombs and stones at the police. What he conveniently forgot to say was that in the Shankill area five or six weeks ago a policeman lost his life not because of the activities of the people in the Bogside or Falls Road areas, but because of the activities of people living in this so-called loyalist area, people who are in conflict not only with this House but with the Government of Northern Ireland, and who formerly called themselves the supporters of Unionism in Northern Ireland. If any condemnation is to be levelled at anyone in Northern Ireland for assaulting the police, the blame should be laid where it belongs.

Mr. McMaster: Will the hon. Gentleman face the facts and admit that all this trouble started with the attempt to discredit the police in Northern Ireland and to undermine the Government? As long as a minority in Northern Ireland try to impose their will on the majority in the way that they did at Londonderry, there will always be trouble. I condemn extremists on both sides, but the trouble arose originally as a result of what happened in Londonderry. It was a deliberate attempt to discredit the police in the eyes—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions should be brief. Even answering that intervention will widen the debate too much.

Mr. Fitt: I do not accept that the trouble in Northern Ireland stems from the attempt by certain people to discredit the police. Has the hon. Member for Belfast, East forgotten, or perhaps not

read, the Cameron Commission's Report? That Commission gave all the reasons for the trouble in Northern Ireland, and why the police, trying to act as agents of the Northern Ireland Government, found themselves in conflict with an oppressed minority. It did not stem from enmity between the police and the minority. It was brought about by the inactivity of the Northern Ireland Government to introduce reforms, and because they used the police force to beat their political opponents into the ground. There can be no dispute about this.
We need assurances that the Secretary of State will be able, if he feels it necessary, to dispatch police, against the advice, if necessary, of the Minister of Home Affairs. The latter will probably accept the advice of the Inspector-General of the R.U.C.: but who will then hold that post? The present Inspector-General, Sir Arthur Young, who was appointed by this House, has the confidence of the whole community. Certainly the minority accept him gratefully. Perhaps he is not so well received by the political majority, who feel that he has been imposed upon them by the Home Secretary.
But in two or three years, if he had to leave Northern Ireland or if he resigned, who would succeed him? There is no confidence in his immediate subordinates who would be likely to succeed him—the county and district inspectors, who have themselves been involved in civil disturbance and did not acquit themselves to the satisfaction of the whole community, of this House or of the Cameron Commission. We must maintain the power for the Home Secretary to despatch one, two or three persons to Northern Ireland to carry out a particular investigation. He may want to send a greater number of constables in a given situation.
It cannot be repeated too often that those of us in Northern Ireland who do not support the Unionist Party were told repeatedly in March and April in the Stormont by the then Minister of Home Affairs that the explosions which had taken place were the work of a subversive organisation, the I.R.A. We knew very well that the I.R.A., if there was such an organisation, was not responsible. In fact, the former Prime Minister, Captain O'Neill, has made it clear since he was forced to relinquish that office that he did not believe that it was the work of the


I.R.A. But the police force and the Minister and the newly-appointed Inspector-General said at the time that all these explosions were the work of the I.R.A.
Only with the appointment of an Inspector-General by this House, Sir Arthur Young, was the investigation reopened which had been conveniently closed during those months to see who was really carrying out this sabotage—

Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I have no wish to curtail the hon. Member's speech, but are not these explosions the subject of prosecution at the moment? Surely the outcome of this makes the matter sub judice?

The Deputy Chairman: The sub judice rule does not apply when discussing legislation, but, again, we do not want to get involved in too much history on this Amendment.

Mr. Fitt: I certainly accept the Ruling which the Chair gave earlier, and which you have repeated, Mr. Gourlay, that when we are discussing legislation, these matters cannot be ruled sub judice. It was noticeable with what alacrity the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) tried to stop this point being brought forward.
It has now been proved that those responsible for the explosions would normally have called themselves supporters of the Unionist Party, members of the U.V.F., who have supported the Unionist Party since its inception—[Interruption.]—I agree that, at present, they do not support it, but for a few years they certainly did support the Unionist Government.
We ask that the Secretary of State should retain the right to order an investigation in Northern Ireland even against the wishes of the Minister of Home Affairs or the Inspector-General. This problem would not arise with the present Inspector-General, who was forced on the Northern Ireland Government, but if and when his successor takes over and there is a hard-line Minister of Home Affairs, this House should be able to interfere. It has been forced to interfere, belatedly, after 48 years of subjection and oppression in Northern Ireland. We should keep the powers we have and should improve the

legislation to give us even more power in this respect. Only then can we ensure that social justice is made freely available to everyone in Northern Ireland.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: This is a key Amendment and I view with a little distress the attitude with which it has been approached by the House. We are discussing two Bills today. Although I cannot range wider than this Amendment, my attitude to this one is what it will be to all—to examine them constructively in a quiet and reasonable fashion, I hope. I am determined not to be provoked. That is the best way for us to approach this legislation.
On this Amendment, we are discussing part of an elaborate package which has been arranged between the Home Secretary and the Government of Northern Ireland. The point which is of the greatest importance is that it is the wish of both the Home Secretary and the Northern Ireland Government to build, out of the events of the last couple of months, a police force and a security system which is acceptable to Protestant and Catholic alike. It is against that background that we should consider the Amendments.
It seems to me—I do not mean to raise the temperature by saying this—that some hon. Members, by their attitude to parts of this legislation, wish to torpedo that package arrangement before it starts and to make the minority in Northern Ireland less confident of the new security and policing arrangements which have been evolved by the two Governments. It is important that, throughout our debates on these two Bills, this should be constantly borne in mind.

Mr. Michael Foot: When the hon. Gentleman talks about a package arrangement for this Bill and the next, I hope that he is not suggesting that it is not proper for us to make substantial amendments in either of them.

Mr. Mills: No, I am not suggesting that for one moment. What I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind is that we should approach this rather than raking over the embers, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) did, in a particularly partisan and sectarian fashion, with a determination to judge the package on its merits. I believe that this


Amendment would cut the basis of the package to pieces.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), whose interest in these matters I acknowledge, has put forward an Amendment which would allow Westminster to act over the head of the Stormont Government and send in a police force at their own volition. I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not like some previous Northern Ireland Secretaries: he has made that clear both today and in the past.
While I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the situation, I remind him that if any of the civil disturbances which he elaborated were to erupt in Northern Ireland, under the new arrangements it would be the G.O.C. who would have control for security while the rôle of the police would be related purely to a policing function. That has been agreed between the two Governments. Thus, while I do not accept the premise of his worry, I urge him to consider this point carefully because it goes to the very heart fo the matter. The Amendment is unnecessary because I do not accept the need for such a major takeover of the powers of the Stormont Government.
At one point I was about to congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, West because I thought that he had evolved a new argument. However, when he went in depth into an analysis of the Unionist Party—he explained the various shades within it and what made it tick—I thought that while it would make interesting Sunday newspaper reading, the House would view with certain reservations the accuracy of his remarks. Hon. Members may consider that a certain amount of prejudice entered into his argument. I am in a charitable mood tonight. If I were not I could say some very unkind things about him.
The hon. Gentleman then referred to Sir Arthur Young, the new Inspector-General, and suggested that he had been appointed by the new Home Secretary. He knows that he was appointed by the Stormont Government—

Mr. Fitt: As part of the package.

Mr. Mills: —and the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs.
He then referred to the explosions which took place earlier in the year. I should have thought that, in debating a matter of this kind in a responsible fashion, one would be slow to comment on a subject which was still for decision by the courts. It is not for me to teach the hon. Gentleman how to conduct himself. I leave that to the Cameron Commission and the Scarman Tribunal.
While matters concerned with some of these explosions are still for decision by the court, it seems clear that the 15 bomb explosions which occurred simultaneously one evening in Belfast were the work of the I.R.A.

Mr. Fitt: Really!

Mr. Mills: I leave it at that. No prosecutions are pending against any individuals in that connection. I may be wrong in saying that it was the work of the I.R.A., but I believe that it was. I would not have commented on the matter if anybody had been charged with an offence and was awaiting trial.
The Amendment is mischievous. If accepted, it would severely upset the package arrangement which has been agreed between the two Governments and which is designed to maintain an even balance to secure the respect and confidence of Protestants and Catholics alike in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: I would not have intervened at this stage but for the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this topic. They talk of the need to reassure people in Northern Ireland and build up the confidence of the minority. Is not the Amendment designed to do just that?
I do not want to rake over past deeds However, there have been occasions when the judgment of Ministers of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland have been rather suspect. Perhaps they have not always acted with sufficient wisdom. This is why it might be advisable on some occasions for the British Home Secretary to have the power to intervene in the way the Amendment suggests. This is, to the Unionist, merely cementing those strong relationships that exist between the two countries. I therefore see no reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite should object to the Amendment.
Reference has been made to matters which are sub judice. You, Mr. Gourlay, rightly ruled that we are considering legislation and that we may discuss such matters. However, when an hon. Gentleman opposite criticises one of my hon. Friends for doing so, I must inform him—and the same goes for the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark)—that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The cases are not in any way comparable. I was referring to Scarman and quoting from published evidence in connection with matters about which I understand nobody is on trial. My hon. Friend was referring to cases in the courts where charges have been made. The two matters are, therefore, different. I also quoted directly from a book which was published only last Thursday.

Mr. McNamara: That may be so—

The Deputy Chairman: While it is not in order to go back to a discussion which occurred on a previous Amendment, I will allow the hon. Gentleman to make a brief reply.

Mr. McNamara: That explanation on the part of the hon. Member for Londonderry was disingenuous, and I might even say Jesuitical, because the distinction which he made was too finely drawn. He knows the situation in which the hon Lady concerned finds herself.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I apologise to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) that I did not hear the whole of his speech.
I make one comment, and one only, on the interesting argument which has taken place on both sides of the Committee about the sub judice rule. It seems clear, Mr. Gourlay, as you have reminded the Committee, that the sub judice rule does not apply when we are discussing new legislation, as in this case, but I was somewhat surprised, and perhaps the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will agree that it was perhaps an unfortunate use of phrase, that he should say that it had now been proved that certain people carried out certain explosions which he himself had admitted were matters before

the courts at that time. Although I appreciate that the sub judice rule does apply, I think he would not wish to be thought to be prejudging the outcome of those trials at this time.
I hope very much that the Home Secretary or the Minister of State will not accept this Amendment, for two reasons; I believe it is misconceived and in part dangerous. I believe it is misconceived because, going back to what the Minister of State repeated in discussion of the previous Amendment and what was said on Second Reading, it ignores the purpose of the Bill. That, we have been reminded time and again, is to meet special demands on resources on a short-term basis. Therefore, when the hon. Member for Belfast, West described the type of circumstances in which he would wish the Home Secretary should have power to send police from this country, I think he was referring to the very types of circumstance which the hon. Lady said were never intended to be envisaged by the Bill.
It is also misconceived for the argument which the hon. Member for Blackley put at the end of his speech. Surely if the purpose of the Bill is to improve the relationship and get a closer working relation between the police in this country and police in Northern Ireland, it is important that the basis should be one of trust. For that reason Clause 1(1) significantly makes an effort to ensure that aid can be provided to the Inspector-General from a chief officer in this country. For the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley to talk about the need for the Home Secretary to be able to send forces to a large extent may undermine and interfere with that trust. That is the main way in which the Bill would work. The hon. and learned Member for Blackley ended his speech by saying that police should be sent there at the decision of the Home Secretary and not at the decision of the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland. With respect to the hon. and learned Member—

Mr. Roy Roebuck: He is not learned.

Mr. Carlisle: I would never refer to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) as learned, or whatever is the


appropriate phrase for those who write to the Press.

Mr. Roebuck: May I remind the hon. Member that at one time he was happy to be employed looking through my articles for libel? I would be happy to give him some more employment.

Mr. Carlisle: I was happy to earn part of my living from that admirable newspaper, the Daily Mirror. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member describe the work of a sub—editor as creative work. I thought he merely sub—edited that which had already been written.
The hon. Member for Blackley said that he was anxious that police who go to Northern Ireland should do so at the decision of the Home Secretary and not the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland. Subsection (2) requires that the Secretary of State in this country must be satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of public safety for the force to go there. Therefore, to talk of police being moved from this country to Ulster merely at the request of the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland without the decision of the Secretary of State in this country is misconceived.

Mr. Rose: The hon. Member misunderstood me. He has got this completely the other way round. What I said was that we want police to go if it is deemed necessary by the Home Secretary in this country even though it is not deemed necessary by the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, certainly not the other way round.

Mr. Carlisle: That was the effect of the Amendment, but the hon. Member said that it should be the decision of the Home Secretary that police went there and not the decision in Northern Ireland. I am putting out that even if the request comes from Northern Ireland the Home Secretary has to make a decision whether he is satisfied with the request.
This is a damaging Amendment because it is attempting to override and interfere with the power of the Stormont Government which exists for maintaining law and order in that country. Like the hon. Member, I went to Northern Ireland very shortly after the troubles there. If we wish to see peace and stability in Northern Ireland, it is important that we

in this House should do all in our power to support the present Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in his efforts to carry through the reforms he is attempting to carry through in the Stormont Government. To do that it is important that we should not attempt in this House to undermine his powers or the powers of those attempting, against considerable pressure from both sides in Northern Ireland, to carry through what they and I personally believe are necessary and welcome reforms.
To attempt at this stage to interfere with the rights of the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs in the way the Amendment would do would be damaging because it would undermine that influence and authority at a time when the authority and influence of the present Prime Minister in Northern Ireland requires all the support he can get from this House in carrying through the programme on which he has embarked.

Miss Devlin: I support the Amendment. Hon. Members opposite have totally missed the point of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) asked that the words "on his own initiatives" should be inserted. That implies that successive Ministers of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland suffer from one of two defects; either they do not have initative or they use it unnecessarily. That is why we deem it necessary to call on the initiative of the Home Secretary.
If we are to take this line of argument it is necessary to bring before this House proof that we believe successive Ministers of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland either have no initiative or have wrongly used it. One can never deny that Mr. Craig had initiative. Mr. Craig on 5th October had a delightful, mischievous, malicious idea and he used his initiative. He banned a march and sent it on a nonexistent route. He used his initiative by saying, "You cannot march this way, but you can march another way", there being no other way to march. That was an excellent piece of initiative which led to a lot of police brutality, a lot of injured people and ill will in the City of Londonderry.
Subsequently, following other blunders, Mr. Craig was dismissed by someone who had initiative. He was replaced by


Captain Long. Captain Long was renowned not for initiative but for complete lack of it. I remember meeting Captain Long on one occasion in Stormont, where he was generally referred to by student squatters as the water-carrying Boy Scout of the Unionist Party because as Minister of Home Affairs his sole function seemed to be to carry a message from one department to another and to convey it to people outside the party because he was the only person who looked honest enough to be believed.
Mr. Long had no initiative. Demonstrations were being held and Mr. Long might have used his initiative. He might have banned one demonstration or the other demonstration, or both, or neither, but Mr. Long could never take the initiative or make up his mind which course of action he should take until the last minute. This built up the idea in everyone's mind that they were right and that Mr. Long would support them, so inevitably the clash came when someone forced Mr. Long into taking a decision and no one was satisfied with it.
When the students wanted to march from Belfast to Derry in January, I was one of the deputation of students who went to see the Minister of Home Affairs. It was on our initiative that we went to see the Minister. I think that he was quite frightened of seeing us, but he had the initiative to offer us tea when we got there. Then he remembered that there was not any tea in the House of Commons because everybody else had gone home. Such was his initiative.
We discussed for at least two hours with Captain Long whether or not this march should take place and what protection would be afforded to the marchers if given the legal right to march. We drew up with Captain Long a joint Press statement which was to be given to the newspapers and which stated simply that we had met and discussed the issues, and that we would decide on our course of action and he would decide whether to ban the march.
The B.B.C. television decided to interpret this Press notice as an indication that Mr. Long had invited us to Stormont to ask us to call off the march. This is how it was represented on television. Mr. Long had not the initiative, although we rang him six times, to ring

up the B.B.C. saying that it had misinterpreted the Press statement.
I come now to the initiative of Mr. Porter, the present Minister of Home Affairs. Hon. Members may think that this is not relevant or that it is out of order. It is relevant because I am pointing out why myself and other hon. Members believe that we must rely on the initiative of someone other than the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, because I am referring not to one gentleman with particular failures but to successive Ministers for Home Affairs, each one having replaced the other because of the first one's lack of initiative.
Mr. Porter was the gentleman who was Minister of Home Affairs when I fought the Mid-Ulster by-election. I was informed by a number of people who were not particularly well disposed to my fighting this election that if I appeared at the small village known as Moneymore in County Derry, I would be lucky to get out of the said village alive. This they did ten days before polling day—that was, the day after nomination.
I immediately telephoned Mr. Porter and hold him. What initiative did Mr. Porter take? Daily these threats kept coming in: "If you come to this village, you will not get out of it. You will not be allowed to hold your meeting. We will wreck it". Mr. Porter had ten days' notice that people intended to wreck this meeting.
A meeting was first held on that evening at a town known as Draperstown some few miles away. Mr. Porter was aware of everywhere that I was holding a meeting. He was aware that I was coming down the Draperstown Road towards Moneymore there to hold yet another meeting.
Mr. Porter had not the initiative to put a solitary policeman between me and 400 people who were determined to prevent me from getting into that village. With the initiative of a police constable in that village, I managed to get as far as the police station but could not reach the platform on which I was to hold the meeting. I said to the constable, "Why are there not enough people here to form a cordon and keep all those people back?" He said, "We have only got


a few men." I said, "But Mr. Porter knew about it." He said, "Well, Mr. Porter would not let us have any other men because of the disturbances that might happen in the rest of Northern Ireland."
Mr. Porter had not even the initiative to make himself unavailable when, extremely angry and rather bruised, I and my supporters got back to our headquarters and ferreted him out in the Apprentice Boys Hall in Derry drinking his little heart away. I lifted the telephone and dictated to Mr. Porter what I wanted done; and Mr. Porter stood at the other end of the phone and said: "Yes, Miss Devlin. Yes, Miss Devlin. Certainly, Miss Devlin. Yes, Miss Devlin. Yes, Miss Devlin." What is more, to my surprise, up to the end of that election Mr. Porter did exactly as I told him. I was very surprised. Such was the initiative of the Minister of Home Affairs that the person who shouted loudest at him was listened to.
Such has Mr. Porter's reaction been to the whole question of the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill. Mr. Porter is a well-known liberal in Northern Ireland, a well-known moderate member of the Orange Order and of the Apprentice Boys, who wishes that people would be a bit nicer to each other. He does not particularly like the Orange Order, he will tell us, but he has not the initiative to get out. He has not the initiative to get out of the Apprentice Boys. Nor has he the initiative to get out of the Ministry of Home Affairs, even though he admits that he would rather be doing his own job and not be in politics at all.
Such is his initiative that when he was challenged by Mr. John Hume in Stormont on the question of the non-existent existing application forms he admitted to having been aware of the fact and involved in the sending of application forms which he said were not application forms, while admitting that they were headed "Application form".

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I hope that at some point we shall hear more about the question of these application forms. Can I be assured that it will be in order to dis-

cuss them, because they do not seem wholly relevant to the Amendment?

The Deputy Chairman: It would not be in order to discuss the application forms. The hon. Lady is making an incidental reference to them. I hope that she will very shortly conclude her argument.

Miss Devlin: Thank you, Mr. Gourlay I am merely using the incident to describe the initiative—[An HON. MEMBER. "Or lack of it."]—of the Minister of Home Affairs.
The same applies when one takes any of the incidents, some of which were much more serious than those that I have described. When people marched from Derry to Burntollet Captain Long told them they could march. How comes it that, it being a legal march, it could be reported in a legal document like the Report of the Cameron Commission that the police had not afforded us sufficient protection because they never thought we would get there? It is written in the Report of the Cameron Commission that the police did not afford us sufficient protection because they did not think we would get there. Captain Long did not put enough men on the road because he thought that we would be terrorised off the road long before we reached Derry. Such was his initiative that he had not the guts to ban the march; nor had he the guts to tell people that he was not banning it.
So have successive Ministers of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland tried to keep everybody happy, tried to plan one side off against the other, and the initiative is taken only, just as the initiative for the House of Commons at Westminster to produce legislation has been taken only, when it is paid for, and paid for dearly, with the lives and the security of people in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, we do not want another circumstance where we are begging, as we were begging at Burntollet and outside Randalstown, where I myself was one of those who made the futile attempt to contact the Prime Minister in this country and begged for British policemen; but nothing could be done, because of the Minister of Home Affairs' power. We begged for British policemen in Derry. We begged for British policemen at Burntollet. We could not get them


because the Minister of Home Affairs did not deem it necessary to ask for them, and there was not this Bill.
Now there is this Bill. It can be totally useless if we have to look at the calibre of Northern Ireland politicians. Look right through them, from the front to the back benches of the Unionist Party: pick any one of them and one will get a Minister of Home Affairs of the calibre of Porter, of Long, and of Craig—inadequate, ineffective and lacking in any kind of useful initiative. Therefore, it is our responsibility to put initiative where there can be responsibility for it—that is, with the person responsible to the home country, the Home Secretary.

Mr. Roebuck: I will not detain the Committee by seeking to examine the speech of the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), whose very presence on the Opposition Front Bench is a further indication of the paucity of talent amongst hon. Members opposite. I merely assure the hon. Gentleman that, should any future Lord Chancellor, in a moment of aberration, offer him silk, then as a matter of courtesy to conform with the courtesies of the House of Commons, I shall probably refer to him in the Chamber as "the hon. and learned Member", but otherwise nothing could persuade me to do so.
I support the contention of my hon. Friends that these Amendments should be accepted. I do so directly because of the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). He said that the Amendments were unnecessary because the General Officer Commanding would be able to call up the troops to deal with a civil commotion. That suggestion is not appropriate for two reasons. First, under certain proposals which may come before the House, there will be a military force in Northern Ireland, but I understand that its purpose is not to deal with civil disturbance of that son, but to provide an arm against other attacks on the State. Second, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion goes quite contrary to the established tradition we have in the United Kingdom in these matters.
I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the Report of the Select Committee on the Employment of the Military in Case of Disturbances,

which sat in 1908, and to refer briefly to the evidence given by the right hon. Richard Burdon Haldane, as he then was, the Secretary of State for War. Examined by the Committee on this point, he said:
Now, the soldier is a person who is different from an ordinary citizen in this, that he is armed with a deadly weapon, and, moreover, he comes out in a military formation. The result is that if he appears unnecessarily he is apt to create an impression in the minds of those who are about of a hostile character. His very menacing appearance may lead to the very thing which it is his purpose to prevent—disturbance. For that reason in the War Office, we are very averse to allowing the military to be employed.
There is much more supporting evidence from Mr. Haldane, but I will leave it at that.
It would be very dangerous if one were to rely on the military in such cases. That Committee came to the following conclusion, stated on page 1 of the Report:
The civil authority is responsible for the preservation of the peace, and must therefore take all possible precautions to provide the means of discharging that duty effectively with the forces primarily at its disposal, these being the Police Forces. Thus it is of importance that the Civil Forces should be so organised and administered as to obviate to the utmost possible extent any necessity for resorting to military aid.
That is the point that this Committee should ponder on. Is the arrangement proposed, without the Amendments suggested by my hon. Friend, adequate to ensure that the civil forces will be able to preserve law and order without having to call in the military? Recent evidence has shown that the Committee can place no confidence in those who have been responsible for maintaining law and order in Northern Ireland. For those reasons, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to accept the Amendment.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I greatly admire the eloquence of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I have reached the conclusion that the soul of Ireland lies in prolixity. I shall now try to prove that the soul of Britain rests in brevity.
My first point is that the basic powers arising here will be operated by agreement between the Inspector—General of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the chief constable of a British force.
The second situation envisaged is one in which the Home Secretary agrees with


the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland on a request to him. The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) rightly pointed out that the Home Secretary retains a negative power, the power to disagree with the Home Secretary of Northern Ireland, if he is not satisfied by the request made to him. I suspect that this negative power will in effect apply to chief constables as well, for the reasons I gave earlier about the consultation that would be required on any politically sensitive issue. A number of my hon. Friends have asked in addition for a positive power. They want my right hon. Friend to have powers to oblige policemen to go to Northern Ireland to take part in the control of any civil commotion that may occur. The reason they have expressed is that they do not hold sufficient confidence in the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs, whoever he may be.
I have two reasons for asking both sides of the Committee not to accept the Amendment. First, the Bill is not the proper instrument by which to alter the complete constitutional relationship between Britain and Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend does not want to do that, because he believes that the crucial job we must do is to build confidence in a Northern Ireland Government to run their own affairs as soon as we possibly can, and to build the confidence of all communities in Northern Ireland. If it is felt that this is not a worthy aim, we cannot get round that by amending one subsection of one Clause in a Bill intended for other purposes. They will probably not have much sympathy with that objection, because that is exactly what they would like to see happen. I appreciate that.
But they should take very much to heart the other objection. Policemen are not troops. One cannot oblige policemen, in the same way as one can oblige soldiers, to serve in a situation in which they can rely on nobody to be on their side. As we have already heard in our discussion of an earlier Amendment, the Police Federation is much concerned about its members being put into any situation in which they cannot count on the support of the great majority of the public and all communities in Northern Ireland.
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee thought that that was a very proper position for our police forces to adopt. I do not think that they can now take what is logically a totally contrary position and say that the police forces of Britain should be obliged to go into a situation where the Government of Northern Ireland have made it clear that they do not want them. The Government of Northern Ireland, by definition, must represent a substantial body of opinion in Northern Ireland, and if they do not want British police it follows that a substantial section of opinion in Northern Ireland does not want them either.
That is a position into which I am not prepared to put British policemen, because the very qualities we have talked about in this debate have been the qualities which arise from the desire of British policemen to act in a situation of consent. Those of my hon. Friends who believe that this is a dangerous argument should consider very strongly whether they do not wish to create a situation in Northern Ireland in which a consensus of all parts of the community can be reestablished, and with the civil and not military power.
If, however, the worst were to arise, an initiative remains with the Secretary of State for Defence to send troops if the situation is totally out of hand. The distinction between troops and the policeman is that the policeman should never be in a situation where a substantial part of the public does not support his presence there.

Mr. Rose: This debate has allowed us to hear a remarkable exposition of initiative in Northern Ireland. I accept the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister of State about the constitutional relationship. She will appreciate that many of us would like to weight the constitutional relationship perhaps more in one direction than it has been hitherto. At every point in the sordid history of Northern Ireland, action has come only several years after pressure from Westminster.
But I am to some extent convinced by my hon. Friend's last two arguments. Having argued in favour of the police on this side of the Irish Sea earlier, we would be churlish not to accept that it would be wrong to force them to go where


they were not wanted. I accept this only because of the final argument that in the last analysis we can send troops to Northern Ireland; that we have sent them, and that we are the sovereign authority. Because of the lack of initiative which has been referred to, because of the attitude and actions of successive Home Secretaries in Northern Ireland and their inability to cope with a situation that they have created, they have abdicated power already to Westminster. So perhaps the Amendment is superfluous. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.0 p.m

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 8, after 'request', insert:
'and after consulting the relevant police authority'.
We now move to subsection (2), which deals with the situation in which the Home Secretary can direct a chief officer of police to provide assistance to meet a special demand in Northern Ireland where such assistance cannot be mutually arranged between the chief officer in direct contact with the Inspector—General for Northern Ireland. The purpose of the Amendment is to suggest that before making such a direction the Home Secretary should consult the police authority in the area from which the police are to go. I say at once that I see certain practical difficulties in the Amendment. It is mainly a probing Amendment to see what the Under Secretary has to say and to suggest one or two matters on which he might be able to give assurances to police authorities.
The hope is that the power in subsection (2) will, in fact, never have to be used. I suggest on Second Reading that the hope was that power under the Bill would have to be used very seldom if at all. I certainly hope that, if it is necessary, it will be arranged by agreement between the Inspector-General and the chief officer without the necessity to call in the powers of the Home Secretary to make directions.
I accept, on reflection, that there is a need for a Clause in these terms because similar powers exist in Section 14 of the Police Act, 1964, and I think that

I am right in saying that they have never actually yet been used for police forces in this country. I hope that the same will apply to police mutual aid to Northern Ireland. I also appreciate that if it becomes necessary to use the Bill, particularly Clause 1(2), it is almost inevitable that it will be in circumstances of reasonable urgency. But even if the circumstances be urgent, there should surely, where possible, be some consultation with the police authority.
Presumably, the application would normally be made to the chief constable—this was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey)—who, in practice, would always consult the police authority before agreeing to provide members of his force. If that is so, how much more necessary in cases under subsection (2) which would come into force only if the chief constable were unwilling or unable for some reason to comply with the request of the Inspector—General. If the decision to send police from this country is being taken by the Home Secretary under subsection (2), probably against the wishes of the chief constable, surely there is all the greater need at least to consult the police authority before the decision is taken.
I remind the Under-Secretary that by Section 4 of the Police Act it is the police authority on whom is laid the duty to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force for an area, not the chief constable. Therefore, the authority of all people should know and be required to know what is happening and be able to make the necessary representations to the Home Secretary.
It may well be that a chief constable has not been willing or able mutually to agree with the Inspector—General because there is some local function which he knows about and which he believes is already imposing a strain on the police forces in the area. That would surely be a matter which the Home Secretary should bear in mind and which he would have the opportunity to bear in mind if there were consultations with the police authority.
It is vital that there should be consultation where possible before the police are moved. Of course, I accept that if the special demand became urgent, it


might be impossible for there to be consultation, although one would think—and I believe that this is the normal practice under the 1964 Act—that at least the chairman of the police authority could be contacted.
I strongly urge that if there is not time for consultation beforehand, it is vital that all the relevant information be given to the authority at the earliest moment after the decision to move members of that force. This matter has been raised with me by the County Councils Association and I ask the Under-Secretary for an assurance that the Home Office would keep the police authority informed about what was happening. By Section 12(2) of the 1964 Act an authority has power to obtain a report from the chief officer if the chief officer agrees to move men and surely it is even more important that the Home Secretary should provide adequate information when he decides, perhaps against the wishes of the chief constable, to have policemen moved.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said that this was a probing Amendment, designed to elicit information.
Subsection (2) empowers the Secretary of State to direct a chief officer of a home police force to send aid to the Royal Ulster Constabulary to meet a special demand on its resources. The Amendment would require him before issuing a direction to consult the police authority.
The Amendment must be considered against the background of the purpose of mutual aid. My right hon. Friend dealt with this on Second Reading and I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt with it this afternoon. The purpose is to meet a situation of short duration, such as a football match or weekend demonstration. In England and Wales mutual aid is given for no longer than one or two days. The Home Secretary emphasised that the policy will be to apply it in the same way as between English and Welsh forces and Scottish forces and Northern Ireland as it now applies between forces in Great Britain, and in no different way.
What is involved is an expression of neighbourliness between forces and the

idea is to extend the neighbourliness to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member will not be surprised to hear that I shall advise the Committee to reject the Amendment, but in doing so I appreciate some of the motives behind the questioning.
It must not be thought that in doing this my right hon. Friend is advocating that the Secretary of State should seek to operate this power by issuing edicts from a position of remoteness. Clearly, it would be impracticable to do so. A measure of consultation there must always be. It would be better for it to be carried out informally, particularly bearing in mind that there will sometimes be an element of urgency, than in accordance with a statutory prescription.
The Committee may begin by looking at the way in which mutual aid is fixed up within England and Wales. It is done by negotiations between chief constables, and not by police authorities, under Section 14 of the Police Act, 1964. This is because it is the chief constables who are responsible for the direction and control of their forces, under Section 5 of the 1964 Act. The question which has to be decided is what resources are necessary to prevent a breach of the peace and that is not the sort of matter, arising, as it sometimes may, from a political situation, which it would be appropriate to debate in a police authority.
It must be remembered that the police authority has a concern and a responsibility for the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force within its area, and it must clearly be concerned with a situation in which the resources available for policing its area are temporarily diminished. The practice of chief constables as regards keeping in touch with a police authority before the event varies. Some chief constables invariably tell their chairmen, others not, depending upon the commitment. It seems right that the matter should be left to such an informal arrangement which enables it to depend upon such matters as the relationship between the chief constable and chairman, upon the size of the force and the extent of the commitment.
But a report is always sent to the police authority after the aid has been given for the purpose of informing it and settling any questions of making a charge to the aided force. If this were not the


practice the police authority would be able to require a report under Section 12(2) of the Police Act, 1964, and incidentally, Section 15 of the Scottish Act. This obliges a chief constable to submit a report on any matter connected with the policing of the area for which the police force is maintained and this must cover a report of the fact that the strength of the resources available for policing the area was temporarily diminished.
The power of the Secretary of State to direct mutual aid in England and Wales and Scotland has never been used so there is no precedent to provide guidance. It is obvious that he could not give a direction to the chief constable without first getting in touch with him. The Secretary of State would need first to know what resources he had available, what his current commitments were.
If the matter was urgent this would be undertaken by telephone from the Home Office to the chief constable. The law applicable to England and Wales does not require consultation with the police authority. This would be inappropriate, because of the undesirability of debating in police authorities the kind of political factors which sometimse surround the events leading to aid, and it would be sometimes impracticable, because of the time. My right hon. Friend can give the Committee an assurance that if he were called upon to give a direction under Clause 1(2) he would first get in touch with the chief constable concerned, by telephone if the matter was urgent. It would be for him to tell his chairman, according to the circumstances and relationship. It will also be for him to make a subsequent report to his police authority and that authority would have the right to require a report from him covering the fact that he had received the direction as a result of which the resources available locally had been diminished.
The police authority might reasonably expect to know the reasons which led the Secretary of State to give a direction and an undertaking can be given that information will be supplied to the chief constable. This informal arrangement which is used in this country is the right way to deal with the conditions envisaged here. I hope that I have given the sort of information that the hon. Member asked me for and that he will not be

surprised if I recommend the Committee to resist the Amendment.

Mr. Carlisle: The Under-Secretary has clearly endorsed the practice between chief constables and police authorities. As I understand him, he is endorsing the view that it is this practice which should continue to apply to any recommendations made under this Bill. In those circumstances, and on that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Fitt: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 16, at end insert:
Provided that no constable shall be required to arrest any person for an offence, or prevent the commission of any offence which would not be an offence in Great Britain.

The Deputy Chairman: With this Amendment we can also discuss Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 16, at end insert:
Provided that—

(a) no constable shall be required to enforce Northern Ireland statutes which do not form part of the general law of the United Kingdom, unless previously instructed in their application.
(b) the disciplinary regulations governing the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall first have been assimilated with those governing the conduct of police officers in England, Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Fitt: This is the most significant Amendment that we have put forward. It is no secret that what we are aiming at is to prevent the British police officer seconded to Northern Ireland being forced to implement the notorious Special Powers Act and the Flags and Emblems Act. These are two Acts on the Statute Book in Northern Ireland. The Special Powers Act dates from about 1921 and the Flags and Emblems Act since 1951. They are continual irritants to community relations in Northern Ireland.
At all times since they have become part of Northern Ireland legislation they have been used exclusively against the minority there. Only members of the minority have been interned under the provisions of the Special Powers Act. It has never once been used against those who are not in the minority. As we all know, the Act contravenes 22 of the 30 Articles of the United Nations


Declaration on Human Rights. It is a complete and total embarrassment to this Government.

Mr. Dempsey: Would my hon. Friend also bear in mind in putting forward his effective argument that it was used against people who do not belong to Northern Ireland? He may be interested to know that it has been used against—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman pursues that line he will be out of order.

Mr. Fitt: This draconian law would not be tolerated in any other country which claimed to adhere to the concept of democracy. Over a number of years, whenever the Government of Northern Ireland found themselves in difficulty, they immediately set about creating a scare, that the border was under attack, that the Constitution of Northern Ireland was being subverted by the I.R.A., and, as a result many innocent men and boys were interned under this Act. They have never had the opportunity to appear before a court and plead. They were never proven guilty of having committed any offence. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly let it be known that he abhors the existence of this Act. Many of my friends have been in prison for years without having any offence proven against them, except that they were opponents of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.
Today, in Northern Ireland, there are two men in prison. We have had contradictory stories from the Northern Ireland Government and the Home Secretary. It is said that they are not being held under the Special Powers Act. I would like to know under what powers these men are being held. This Act permits flogging and internment without trial or reason. Through this legislation we are talking about tonight, we will permit British police officers to be seconded to Northern Ireland and to arrest people under the provisions of the Special Powers Act—an Act which is repugnant to the very concept of British democracy. We should not put any British officer in this position.
I turn now to the Flags and Emblems Act. In this part of the United Kingdom, in this city, at Hyde Park Corner, all the flags of the different nations in the

world are flown to indicate what sort of meeting is taking place. But in Northern Ireland it is an offence to fly the flag of the Irish Republic on the ground that it may provoke the Unionist majority. This is a sign of the mentality of those who will not tolerate the flying of the national flag of that country in Northern Ireland.
In the recent holocaust in Northern Ireland many people in the so-called loyalist areas were found guilty and convicted by the courts of carrying arms, of using violence towards Her Majesty's Forces, of being involved in a crowd in which a young policeman lost his life and they were sentenced to three months, six months and nine months. Some of them had their sentences wiped out on appeal. In July this year, a young married man, the father of three children, waved a tricolour at an Orange procession in Belfast. He was brought before the courts only recently. He was not given the option of paying a fine, but was immediately sentenced to a year's imprisonment, whereas young people who had committed much graver offences were absolved from any complicity in crimes.
The Special Powers Act and the Flags and Emblems Act take away from individuals in Northern Ireland ordinary democratic freedoms as they are known in this part of the United Kingdom. If we are to bring about a just society in Northern Ireland, we must not ask policemen from this part of the United Kingdom to go to Northern Ireland and implement such unjust laws. That would place an intolerable burden on them which we have no right to place on even the loyalist member of the British police forces. I am sure that the majority of hon. Members opposite support me in that.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) said earlier that we had an unnatural political atmosphere in Northern Ireland. I agree with him. But that is not the fault of the minority or the opponents of Unionism in Northern Ireland. Full responsibility for the undemocratic state of affairs in Northern Ireland can be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Unionist Government.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not discussing affairs in general in Northern Ireland. We are debating the


Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would address himself to it.

Mr. Fitt: I am trying to keep within the strict limits of the Amendment. Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Gourlay, the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), was a member of a Commission in 1935 which inquired into the operation of the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland—and I believe that a copy of its findings is in the Library—which in no uncertain terms levelled the greatest condemnation at that Government for retaining their power with the help of this Act and stifling their opponents' views against them. This Government should not allow British police officers to go to Northern Ireland to implement the provisions of the Special Powers Act.
I understand that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has suggested that if the Government insist on letting British policemen go to Northern Ireland they should be instructed in the laws of Northern Ireland before being asked to arrest people for breaking those laws. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a spokesman for British police forces in this country. I do not say anything against the British police forces. I respect them. In recent weeks and months, during the troubles in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and I have been pleading and demanding that British police forces should go to Northern Ireland. I think that I would have the support of my hon. Friend and of all other hon. Members who believe in democracy when I say that we do not want British policemen to go to Northern Ireland to implement the Special Powers Act and that we do not want anyone to go there to implement that Act or the Flags and Emblems Act.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that if British police forces are seconded to Northern Ireland in no circumstances should they be asked to implement those two notorious Acts. I believe that if they go to Northern Ireland they will be very reluctant to use their powers to implement those Acts. A British policeman would not be provoked by the sight of the tricolour flying in the streets of Belfast. It would mean nothing to him. He sees flags of every

nation throughout England and he is not provoked. But if he went to Northern Ireland, as the Bill is drafted he would feel, on seeing a tricolour, whatever the circumstances, being flown, that he would have to arrest the person concerned for contravening the Special Powers Act. He should not be placed in that position.
The Government should look into this matter. They should give an undertaking about it. We have had undertakings before which have not been lived up to. We have been told that talks are taking place between the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government here. We have been told that the Special Powers Act will soon be repealed.

Mr. William Molloy: Would not my hon. Friend agree that possibly we are on the threshold of intelligent and sensible relationships between all peoples in Northern Ireland and that if this Amendment is not carried the whole edifice that we are trying to construct will fall? It will be, not only an upset to the minority groups in Northern Ireland, but a distasteful thing to ask British policemen to go there because they are admired and liked and might end up being totally disliked because of the regulations.

Mr. Fitt: I could not agree more. As I have said repeatedly, we want British forces in Northern Ireland, under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when and if necessary. We want them to come without the permission of the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland. They would readily be accepted because we have not had a police force which we could respect in Northern Ireland since the inception of that State. Great significance must be attached to the Amendment.
We believe that British police officers would give us a fair deal in Northern Ireland and would act with complete impartiality towards all sections of the community. But if a British police officer were forced to implement the Special Powers Act or the Flags and Emblems Act, whatever the circumstances, it would immediately create hostility. People would say that forces have come from this country to implement a Draconian act and to ensure that people are interned or imprisoned without trial, together with


all the other denials of democracy in the Special Powers Act.
This situation should be clarified now. Unless the minds of the whole Northern Ireland community—with particular reference to the minority which has been for so long oppressed by the police forces of the Northern Ireland Government—can be clear that the British police officers will not be forced to implement the Special Powers Act and the Flags and Emblems Act, I can foresee that the police forces will be coming to Northern Ireland in circumstances that they will not like and which will not be tolerated by them or by the minority in Northern Ireland.

[Sir HARRY LEGGE-BOURKE in the Chair]

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I rise to support Amendment No. 9 which is to be taken with Amendment No. 8. I apologise to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) for not having been here at the beginning of his speech. He and I may find ourselves in a curious unholy alliance for, although I am glad to have his support for Amendment No. 9, he must accept that my Amendment is not suggested for the reasons which he has given. Never mind, it is the practical result that matters and not necessarily the aetiology of it.

Mr. McNamara: I am interrupting the hon. Gentleman not to attack him but to try to help him. Amendment No. 9 is divided into paragraphs (a) and (b), and paragraph (b) is similar to Amendment No. 11 under my name which deals with roughly the same points. It might be of help if we took paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 9, and then took paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 9 with Amendment No. 11. We could thus separate two important issues, and, if he agrees, we will for the rest part company.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: That is a sensible suggestion. Certainly paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 9 fits with Amendment No. 8, and paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 9 goes much better with Amendment No. 11. I wonder if you would agree, Sir Harry, and if the Minister would consent to debate those two matters separately?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir H. Legge-Bourke): The original selection having be made, it is now too late to alter it. The Question having been already put to the Committee, I think that we must stick to the arrangement that I inherited.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am obliged, Sir Harry. I shall be doing that, but we are here dealing with two rather different matters. I will deal first with the second part of Amendment No. 9:
the disciplinary regulations governing the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall first have been assimilated with those governing the conduct of police officers in England, Wales and Scotland.
I put down that Amendment for practical reasons and not because I wish to engage in rhetoric. It is cruical to police operations that the ordinary policeman in uniform who conducts them must know precisely where he stands in respect of his own discipline code. The Minister of State gave an important assurance on this matter. If I understood her correctly, a British policeman who is directed to Ulster, as opposed to a volunteer, while he is in Ulster will be subject to the disciplinary code of his own force and to no other. That is a most valuable assurance, and it will meet the point I am making in the second part of the Amendment.
But I would ask the hon. Lady two more questions, and ask her to go a little further. I can conceive of situations that might arise where a British policeman in Ulster is under the direct operational command of an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This must happen from time to time; indeed, it is the whole object of the exercise. If that senior officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary gives an order which is entirely consistent with the discipline regulations of his force, and the British police officer, because he is not familiar with those disciplinary regulations, contravenes it—I do not mean that he neglects to carry out a direct order but that his disciplinary code is different from that of the officer giving the instruction—surely, in spite of the hon. Lady's assurances, he will be placed in a most anomalous position. I do not think it would be enough for him to say to the senior officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who has given him the order, "Yes, but the Minister of State


at the Home Office in the House of Commons about five years ago gave an assurance that I would not be placed under the disciplinary code of the Royal Ulster Constabulary." Therefore, I put down the Amendment which seeks an assimilation of disciplinary regulations between the two forces.
In practice the disciplinary regulations between the two forces are very similar. There are some differences which are significant but perhaps not important. If police are to go from this country to help the authorities in Ulster, and vice versa, the disciplinary regulations as well as all the other aspects of the police forces should be brought more closely together. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to tell the Committee that this is her intention and the intention also of the Stormont Government.
We are in a difficulty in discussing many of these matters since the Stormont Government need to pass legislation governing the operations of the Ulster forces. We are in the difficulty that we cannot make up our minds until we see what they do. But they do not have the power to do some of these things which are necessary until they are given the power by this House. It is the old dilemma of the chicken and the egg. Perhaps the Minister of State will say that the policy is that the disciplinary regulations should be assimilated as quickly as possible.
Turning to paragraph (a), I do not wish to become involved in the controversy over the Special Powers Act. I wish only to deal with the practicalities of the matter from the police officer's point of view. It is essential that police officers sent to Ulster should know precisely the laws which they are to administer. It would be wrong if they were to find themselves in a situation in which all their training, instinct and education in the laws of this country, they had to enforce laws which are somewhat different.
I am trying to avoid any emotion in this matter. I am simply saying that a police officer is confronted with a whole series of contingency situations and must act quickly. He cannot run back to the police station to ask his inspector what he is to do, nor can he come to the House of Commons and ask us what to

do. He must know precisely, according to the book, what it is he should do in certain circumstances. It would be wholly irresponsible for the House to place policemen in a situation in which they must react quickly to emergencies and yet have virtually two sets of laws under which they are supposed to operate.
In practice the police are not provided with the legislative charters of this House. They are provided with a handbook summarising the law for practical purposes. It is therefore important that the handbooks available to the police clearly define their responsibilities.
I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not accuse me of being partisan since I do not intend to be. The British police when they are sent to Ulster must by duty enforce the law of the land as it is. It is for hon. Gentlemen to say whether or not the Special Powers Act should be done away with, but the fact of the matter from the police officers' point of view is that if the Special Powers Act exists the policemen must enforce it since it is part of the laws of Ireland.
I want to hear from the Minister of State whether the British police who are sent to Ulster will be required to enforce the law in Ulster as it stands. I suppose this to be true. Indeed, I cannot imagine it to be anything other than true. With respect to hon. Members opposite, no policeman can make a conscience clause proviso. He cannot say that he will go provided that he does not have to do certain acts which he does not like. His job is to obey orders, and it is essential that the ordinary policeman and the officer giving him the orders, bearing in mind that in many cases the officer will be a member of the R.U.C., are responding to the same set of rules. It is for the Committee to ensure that the rules are the same.
I am sure that the hon. Lady will be able to reassure me. If policemen are to go, whether as volunteers or as people instructed to go, it is essential for them to have a single set of laws to enforce, for them to know what they are and that they have been given adequate instructions before they go there. If those preconditions are not met, this operation will not be a success.

Miss Devlin: This Amendment is probably the most important one that we are


discussing. I am aware of its implications. I take the point of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) that one cannot easily introduce a kind of conscience clause to say that a policeman shall operate part of the law, but not all of it. However, we must also consider the fact that the people who are now members of the British police forces joined because they wished to serve their country in that way, because it was the kind of job that they thought that they could do well for society and because they would not be upholding the law if they did not have respect for it.
The law which they uphold and for which they have respect, however, is different from the one that the Bill asks them to enforce. If the Committee rejects the Amendment, it will be asking members of the British police force to perform a duty for which they did not enter the force and which to most of them, as British citizens, is an abhorrent piece of legislation.
I am well aware that we have been assured that they will not be asked to implement it. However, let us look at the situation from a practical point of view. How are we to deal with the dual situation in which a set of events occur in Northern Ireland and it becomes necessary to call in a number of British police officers? Let us say that the circumstances involve 100 policemen, 50 of them Northern Ireland policemen and the other 50 British officers. Let us assume, further, that 500 people are involved who will be brought before a court and dealt with under what we are asked to believe is the same law. Whether those people are found guilty and condemned to a prison sentence or allowed to walk as free citizens will depend ultimately not on the Tightness of the law, not on the set of circumstances involved, but on the nationality of the men who apprehend them.
For any given action, if a member of the R.U.C. is expected to enforce that law, he will enforce it. If a member of the British constabulary is expected to enforce it, he may or may not do so. Therefore, we have a situation whereby the individual freedom of the people of Northern Ireland, bad as it is at the moment, is becoming worse. Those of us who feel that we have a right to make a

point will have to study carefully the face of every copper that we see and hope that it is the British police that catch us. This may be ridiculous, but this is the kind of situation that we have.
This is the duality that the House of Commons refuses to accept, when allowing legislation to go through, in asking us to believe that Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales are all integral and equal parts of the United Kingdom, and that there is one British law and one British standard. Yet, at the same time, the House of Commons finds it necessary to assure us that the better class British citizen, being English, Welsh or Scottish, will not be asked to enforce the laws of the lower class British citizen, being Irish, because we are not all equally British and we do not have equal British laws.
8.45 p.m.
The only assurance that I can accept from the Government that this will not be the case is that the Special Powers Act will be abolished in Northern Ireland. Time and again I have heard arguments for the Special Powers Act. If those arguments are valid in Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, they are equally valid in this country today on two levels, because opposition to the Constitution in Northern Ireland is on two levels. First, it is on the level of political opposition. It is on the political level of members of the Nationalist Party, with whom I have little sympathy, and on the political level of members of the Sinn Fein.
Secondly, it is on the level of bodies like the Irish Republican Army and the Ulster Volunteer Force, which are physical force levels. If the Special Powers Act is necessary on one or both levels, then let us take the rest of Great Britain.
An hon. Lady Member who takes her seat here is a member of the Scottish Nationalist Party—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge—Bourke): Order.

Miss Devlin: There are people in Wales—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat when the Chair rises. I am being as generous as I can, because I realise that the Committee stage of a Bill is a new


experience to her, but I must ask her to try to confine her remarks at least to Ireland.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. John Ryan: On a point of order. Surely the process of illustrating a situation is not without the confines of this narrow Clause, to which, with ulmost respect to your jurisdiction, Sir Harry, I submit my hon. Friend is conforming.

Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I beg the Committee's pardon. I think that I am in error. I withdraw the comment that I made.

Miss Devlin: Thank you, Sir Harry.
I am endeavouring to prove that if Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, it is a position which I do not like. However, I am not arguing from that position; I am arguing from an objective position of fact. We are an integral part of the United Kingdom, like it or not. Therefore, we are entitled to the same kind of law as any other person in the United Kingdom.
There is no Special Powers Act, nor has there ever been talk of a Special Powers Act, to deal with people in Wales who, rightly or wrongly, blow up water mains. The Special Powers Act has never been used against them. Yet many of them have been effectively brought before the courts. What is wrong, or do we come back again to the lack of initiative and ability, with the judicial system of Northern Ireland that it cannot provide a procedure whereby people can be charged with offences and brought before the courts and be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
What is wrong with the system in Northern Ireland is that we are asked to support a Bill which says that not only is this integral part of the United Kingdom different in that its laws are different, but that it is now different in that at any time when its police force is made up of people from other parts of the United Kingdom, the administration of that law will be partial and will depend upon whose ultimate authority the individual constable comes.
I argue this not only from the effect that it has on the people of Northern Ireland. Other hon. Members will doubtless go into the malice of the Act. I am trying to deal with it in practical terms.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Lady will recall that earlier today she argued about the existence of subversive Paisley groups. Does she agree that where there are subversive groups, or extremists on one side or the other, special powers are needed to root them out and get rid of them?

Miss Devlin: That is an interesting point. Northern Ireland has the Special Powers Act which enables an ordinary constable to make a judgment on the spot about the guilt or innocence of a person, but Northern Ireland does not have an offensive weapons Act. It has not legal means of bringing before the courts people who carry offensive weapons.
I remind the Committee that it was Mr. Porter himself who said that photographic evidence of people carrying weapons was not enough to enable them to be accused of anything because Northern Ireland did not have an offensive weapons Act. We do nothing to prevent people from walking down the street with clubs, and perhaps with nails driven into those clubs. We could do nothing until they hit somebody, unless we used the Special Powers Act, and that was not used.
I am not arguing from that point. I merely used it to answer the hon. Gentleman. I am talking about the effect which this legislation has, and must have, not only in Northern Ireland, but in the whole of the British Isles. The Bill proposes to extend the Special Powers Act. We have often heard hon. Gentlemen opposite argue that violence brutalises society. Let us consider the 100 British police officers who are sent to Northern Ireland. With all due respect to my right hon. Friend, I cannot see how these assurances can be met effectively. Let us therefore assume that these officers have to accept the laws of the country, and that they become accustomed to the Special Powers Act, as has happened in Northern Ireland.
The biggest mistake that the House makes is that it looks at the Northern


Ireland police force and says that the minority are represented by less than 10 per cent. of the force, and that that shows an unwillingness on the part of Catholics to play their full part in society. That unwillingness is to be found not only among Catholics. It is found in the general level of ability and intelligence between the two forces. It is a general reluctance on the part of fair-minded citizens to become part of a body which enforces such a law.
We are putting the onus on every citizen who wants to join British police forces, which, as has been said, are already depleted, to accept the fact that he is joining a force which may or may not some day be called upon to implement that part of the law. That is what he has to consider in looking at this proposal which, no matter what I say, will probably become law. The longer this provision stands on the Statute Book, the more brutalised people will become, and the more the Special Powers Act will be exploited. One cannot then argue that anyone in this country has a right to take one solitary demonstrator to a Springbok football match, because then we have not only a Britain which failed to deal with Ulster as it failed to deal with Rhodesia but a Britain which is herself becoming Western Europe's South Africa.

Captain Orr: Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 7 deals with the disciplinary regulations governing the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I hope that it is not long before that is carried out. The differences are not great, and it would be to the advantage of all if the police forces, particularly those sent from time to time to reinforce the R.U.C., and the members of the R.U.C. under the proposed Stormont legislation who were doing the same thing, were all operating under the same disciplinary code. That would be the wish of everybody in Northern Ireland and one hopes that it will soon come about. But I do not think that it requires an Amendment of the Statute—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It needed an Amendment to discuss it.

Captain Orr: Of course, and my hon. Friend has done the House a service in this respect.
I am surprised that the first part of that Amendment and the whole of Amendment No. 8 are drawn so wide. This makes it difficult to discuss any one thing. I understand that hon. Members opposite are concerned that members of the Metropolitan Police Force sent over for a particular occasion to reinforce the R.U.C. should not have to operate the Special Powers Act or the Flags and Emblems Act. What puzzles me is that they did not put down an Amendment to that effect. Then, we could have discussed those two pieces of legislation in particular and in relation to the Bill.
What hon. Members have done is draw a very wide Amendment:
Provided that no constable shall be required to arrest any person for an offence, or prevent the commission of any offence which would not be an offence in Great Britain.

Mr. McNamara: What is wrong with that?

Captain Orr: The law of Northern Ireland is derived from a Statute of this House which is part of the general law of the United Kingdom, but the Government of Northern Ireland, under the Act of 1920, are empowered to make different laws in certain matters. For example, there are the licensing laws. Are hon. Members seriously saying that it is their intention that a policeman sent over to Northern Ireland for the day should operate the licensing laws only as they exist in England and Wales? [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may shake their heads, but that is what their Amendment would do.
The law is different in Northern Ireland in a whole variety of cases. For example, the law there on breathalyser tests is much stricter. The licensing laws, the motor vehicle laws and many others are different under the Act of 1920—

Mr. Keith Stainton: Is my hon. and gallant Friend really suggesting that 100 policemen might be sent from England to Ireland to enforce the local breathalyser law?

Captain Orr: No, I was not suggesting anything of the kind. But if policemen are sent for a particular purpose for one day—as the hon. Lady said, they will probably be sent for hours rather than


weeks—they will have to operate the law of the land as it stands. I cannot think of an instance in which they would be called on to operate the Special Powers Act.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: There is the case of the Springboks match which has just been banned under the Special Powers Act. My hon. and gallant Friend should address himself to the situation that would arise if a considerable number of rugby fans took strong exception to that.

Captain Orr: I stand corrected because I did not know that the Act had been invoked. I take it that the news is on the tape.

Mr. Roebuck: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it all depends on what one means by an offence? It is an offence in this country to ignore the licensing laws or to drive having consumed too much alcohol. However, it is not an offence to engage in certain democratic processes, whereas in Northern Ireland such action might be regarded as an offence.

Captain Orr: The hon Gentleman must concede that the Amendment goes far wider than that. If he had intended that the Special Powers Act or Flags and Emblems Act should never be enforced, it would have been better for him to have said so. Is he aware that the Amendment covers the whole body of law passed by the Northern Ireland Government since 1920, law which derives from the Government of Ireland Act and which is, therefore, part of the general body of law of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Does my hon. and gallant Friend recognise that his argument is particularly applicable in cases of policemen on secondment, who would also be embraced by the Amendment?

Captain Orr: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that comment, which is certainly true.
I come to the argument adduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton).

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman has given several instances of differences between the law of Northern Ireland and the law

of this country. Despite that, he knows the intention behind the Amendment.

Captain Orr: Certainly.

Mr. Fitt: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer a straight question? Does he believe that British police officers, should be called on in Northern Ireland to enforce the provisions of the Special Powers Act or the Flags and Emblems Act?

Captain Orr: As long as they remain the law, they should be enforced.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire said that we could not put constables from English police forces in a position where they did not know which law they were enforcing. He argued that the law in this case would be different in that, being a member of a police force in England or Wales, a policeman would act according to the law applicable to England and Wales.
With respect, I suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend's argument might have been more apposite had he been talking about Scotland, because Scottish common law is different from the law of England and Wales. Northern Ireland common law, on the other hand, is the same. [Interruption.] It was the same up to 1920. Since then Northern Ireland has passed certain laws under the Act of 1920. The statute law is, therefore, properly the statute law as passed by this Parliament. Thus, I suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend's argument is not valid in respect of Northern Ireland. When the police forces in England and Wales are asked the carry out the law, on their coming to Northern Ireland that applies equally to carrying out the law as it exists there.

Mr. Michael Foot: Whatever view hon. Members in different parts of the Committee may take about this Amendment and of the operation of the Special Powers Act, I think everyone must agree that it is absolutely right that we should have a debate on this matter when passing a Police Bill. It would have been a grotesque failure of our duty if we did not have a discussion about that Act.
As the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) knows as well as anyone—perhaps better than many—the Special Powers Act has figured very prominently in all political arguments of


the last 50 years in Northern Ireland. We are now inviting people from this country to assist until the powers in that Act are abolished in their operation. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) cannot get away from the fact that so long as the Act exists the police for whom he speaks so eloquently have to carry out its provisions. There cannot be any doubt that we would have been neglecting our duty if we did not discuss the Special Powers Act in its application.
The hon. and gallant Member attempted to answer the whole question by saying that this Amendment was too wide. To frame an Amendment which is even wider than the Special Powers Act is an achievement on which I congratulate my hon. Friends. For the hon. and gallant Member to suggest that the way in which to answer the debate is merely to say that the Amendment is not properly drawn is not adequate to the measure of the argument. He knows that if an Amendment is too wide, or inept, or is not drawn in precisely proper form, that is a mistake which is often made by back-benchers of all parties and that these things are easily remedied.
All of us know what we are debating. I perfectly understand the desire of hon. Members from Northern Ireland not to wish to discuss the Special Powers Act. They have been trying for years to prevent it from being discussed here. That is precisely one of the reasons why, despite the fact that we have had a considerable debate on the Bill, it is absolutely essential that we should debate that Act.
I thought that the hon. and gallant Member would deal with the Hunt Committee Report. In some other debates he has been a great supporter of the Hunt Committee. When it suits him, he says, "Oh yes, I am a great supporter of the Hunt Committee". I am surprised that such a passionate supporter of the Hunt Committee did not trouble this Committee with a quotation from the Hunt Committee's Report about the Special Powers Act. I do not know whether he has studied it.

Captain Orr: indicated assent.

Mr. Foot: The hon. and gallant Member nods. The very reason why he did

not mention it may be that it would have blown his argument out of the water.
The Government also claim they are doing their best to carry out the recommendations of the Hunt Committee. They have a very special obligation with reference to the Special Powers Act. Because discussion about it has been omitted so far, it is only appropriate that we should consider the Hunt Committee's recommendation on the Special Powers Act. My hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and Mid—Ulster (Miss Devlin) have been able to give chapter and verse as to how the Act is operating.

The Temporary Chairman: We cannot discuss in detail the Report of the Hunt Committee. The Amendment deals primarily with the question whether the law which the police in Northern Ireland will have to operate will be law which applies to Great Britain.

Mr. Foot: Sir Harry, I do not propose to discuss the whole of the Report of the Hunt Committee, but I think that it would be in order to refer to those parts of the Report which relate to the specific matter we are discussing. [Interruption.] I will read it all out for the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We want everybody to understand what the recommendation of the Hunt Committee is on the question of the Special Powers Acts.
Paragraph 143 of the Report says this:
We considered also the position with regard to the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Acts (Northern Ireland) 1922–1943 and regulations made under the Acts. The common name, which we shall use, for the Acts and regulations is the 'Special Powers Act'. There has been much criticism of the Acts, and on more than one occasion the Government has considered repeal; but on each occasion fresh acts of violence have occurred, leading to pressure for retention of the Acts.
I see the hon. and gallant Gentleman shaking his head. I do not know whether he has read this quite as carefully as he pretended. It continues:
A number of police officers with first-hand experience of dealing with riots and extremists
these were the terrible subversives we heard about a few minutes ago who were apparently responsible for the necessity for the Special Powers Act—
told us that they considered that the powers given to them under the Acts were unnecessary, and that the relationship between police and


public would be improved if the Acts were repealed.
That is the most important part of what the Hunt Committee said.
I would not like to quote anything out of its context. The report continues:
144. Some of the small regulations made under the Acts, for example those dealing with explosives, may well be necessary, but could be covered by ordinary legislation"—
that is, doing away with the Special Powers Act.
We consider that the task of the police"—
this is the Hunt Committee's verdict on the precise matter we are debating—
would be made easier if the few essential provisions were provided for under ordinary legislation and the Acts were repealed.
That has been the case which has been made by every spokesman on behalf of Northern Ireland that has come to this Parliament that I can remember. It has been made by the hon. Members for Belfast, West and Mid-Ulster. It has been made frequently by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose).It was made years ago by Mr.Geoffrey Bing when he spoke on these matters. It figured prominently in the Motions and pressure in debates which we had on this subject 20 or 30 years ago. Now we have the recommendation of the Hunt Committee which on every particular where it suits him the hon. and gallant Gentleman is prepared to accept.

Captain in Orr: I have not said that I dissent from the Hunt Committee on this aspect.

Mr.Foot: Now let it be known all over Ireland that we have one Member from the Tory benches who is in favour of abolishing the Special Powers Act.Let the news go out—" Orr comes out in favour of the abolition of the Special Powers Act".

The Temporary Chairman: Order. In dealing with the Amendment we are not dealing also with the question whether the Special Powers Act should be repealed. We are dealing with the question of what law the police should be governed by, I ask the hon. Gentleman to stick to that question.

Mr. Foot: Sir Harry, I submit that I am strictly in order. The Amendment deals precisely with matters which are

governed by the Special Powers Act. The Amendment is designed to ensure that people who are acting in Northern Ireland in future will not have to operate the Special Powers Act.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The Chair, like the Committee, is bound by the rules of order. I am trying to interpret the Amendment as widely as I can,and I hope that I have not been unduly restrictive. I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to pursue the question whether the Special Powers Act should be repealed and to confine himself to the offences which the police ought to deal with.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I apologise if I have not succeeded, Sir Harry, but I have been seeking to apply my argument precisely to that matter. I submit that it is not possible for a debate to proceed on this Amendment in relation to what are the offences for which British policemen should take action against people in Northern Ireland without our comparing the kind of offences for which they may take action in this country and those for which they may take action in Northern Ireland.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I entirely accept that proposition, and I am not trying to restrict the hon. Gentleman from that. I am trying to restrict him from arguing the case for the abolition of the Special Powers Act.

Mr. Foot: I am sorry to pursue the point so diligently, Sir Harry, but it seems to me to be central to the whole of this argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster, who put the Amendment down, said rightly at the beginning of her speech that, in her consideration, this was the most important Amendment affecting the Bill. She speaks with expert knowledge of the matter. I suggest, therefore, that it is necessary for us to discuss what should be done in this connection if the Government intend to take certain measures under the Bill.
If the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend were adopted, steps would have to be taken for the abolition of the Special Powers Act. The logical result of the Amendment would have to be a change in the law in Northern Ireland. That is the way by which one would


bring into proper relationship the offences under which the police could take action. I submit, therefore, Sir Harry, that I am arguing a perfectly proper point.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, Mr. Porter, said in February this year that, given a period of calm, there would be a substantial redrawing of the powers under the Special Powers Act, many of which are totally unnecessary, and that that was broadly in line with what the Hunt Committee has said?

Mr. Foot: I should have much more respect for Mr. Porter if he would do it. He and his Government, the Government which the hon. Gentleman has supported for so long, have had plenty of time to do it, but every time we urge them to do it they say, "It is not calm enough now". I do not know how calm it must be for Mr. Porter to carry out his obligations in this matter and bring the law of Northern Ireland into conformity with the law in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Mills: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has noticed that the period since Mr. Porter was appointed Minister of Home Affairs—that is, since January—has not exactly been a period of calm.

Mr. Foot: In other words, Mr. Porter is not going to abolish the Special Powers Act now.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Both hon. Members are speaking in conflict with my Ruling. I must ask the Committee to come back to the question of what law should govern the police. That is what we are concerned with now.

Mr. Foot: With great respect, Sir Harry, I think that what I have said is fully in order under that head. I am discussing what laws the police in Northern Ireland will have to administer, and whether they will have to continue to administer laws which we regard as abhorrent; that is, those comprised in the Special Powers Act. We want to see whether steps can be taken, as a result of this debate, to try to remedy the situation.

Mr. Roebuck: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with interest. At the beginning of the Bill, in the Explana-

tory and Financial Memorandum, reference is made to Chapter 7 of the Report of the Advisory Committee. Chapter 7 contains several recommendations to the effect that the R.U.C. ought to be much more closely linked with the police forces in Great Britain, and it goes on to give a number of reasons. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be difficult to link the police force of Northern Ireland with the police forces in Great Britain if they were operating two totally different philosophies of law?

Mr. Foot: I entirely agree with that. That was the point made originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster. I was seeking only to underline it further by saying that we must consider whether we shall implement not merely the recommendations of the Hunt Committee which support the other measures proposed in the Bill but also its recommendation for the purpose of assisting the operations of the police. The Committee said that it made its recommendation about the repeal of the Special Powers Acts partly so that the relationship between police and public would be improved. Why is that recommendation being flouted?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I would like to see the Special Powers Acts go as fast as possible. [Interruption.] The Government are reviewing them. Wait for it. If hon. Members have followed these affairs, and read or listened to the speeches, they will have heard me say this on other occasions in the House. But would the hon. Gentleman have wished the Springboks match due for this weekend in Ulster to continue, or would he have wished to see it banned? If so, under what legislation?

Mr. Foot: I would deal with the Springboks under a quite different heading. I am not in favour of having a Special Powers Act, and all the infamies associated with it, to deal with the Springboks tour. The Springboks should have been dealt with by the Rugby Union, if it had any sense of decency and human rights.
Partly what we are concerned about is to assist the police, and those we send to Northern Ireland. That is precisely what is recommended here.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: What legislation?

Mr. Foot: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman was saying that he was the second convert. Now he appears to be going back on that. It is a matter of legislation, according to the Hunt Committee, which makes recommendations that so far, on the question of how the police should operate in Northern Ireland, the House has not accepted.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman is being slightly less than his usual fair self. I said earlier that I had expressed those sentiments about the Special Powers Act on two occasions in the House, which can be looked up. I did not refer to legislation in the sense that the hon. Gentleman is now saying. I asked purely and simply: "If the hon. Gentleman would ban the Springboks match, under what existing legislation he would do it?"

Mr. Foot: I would not do it under the Special Powers Act. That is the simple answer. I would do away with the Special Powers Act. That is a hopeless excuse with regard to what we are discussing.
My argument is not merely with the hon. Gentlemen from Northern Ireland, whom we described the other day as the Parliamentary B Specials. It is with the Government. I want to know what the Government's attitude to this matter is. I would like them to adopt the Amendment. It would be a perfectly feasible way for them to deal with the situation. I am not impressed by the fact that it goes too wide. Possibly some of the details mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) would have to be dealt with, but I do not think that that would be beyond the ingenuity of the Government's draftsmen. If the Amendment goes too wide, perhaps we could gratify the hon. and gallant Member and his hon. Friends, who are apparently now so eager to do away with the Special Powers Act, if we altered the Amendment and circumscribed it to deal precisely with that Act.
Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that the Government will take urgent action to deal with the matter. However, I have suspicions, which I should be very happy to have removed. My suspicion, particularly when I heard the speech of an hon. Member earlier who talked about a package, is

that there have been tacit agreements between the Government of Northern Ireland and the British Government.

Captain Orr: Why not?

Mr. Foot: I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is because particularly in these matters, particularly how British police are to conduct themselves in Ireland, it is absoultely necessary that people know that the power of the House of Commons is paramount. It is absolutely necessary for the minority in Northern Ireland to know that they are not to be further abused.
That is why I am so suspicious of any proposal of a package. If it is believed that we are not able to amend the Act dealing with the conditions governing British police in Northern Ireland, if it is believed in Northern Ireland and here that we are not table to make such Amendments because of an agreement of some sort between the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government at Westminster, if that is part of a package and we are told that we may not unwrap it, that would be a scandal and we would not be prepared to tolerate it. We shall be able to rebuild confidence among people in Northern Ireland—and it is a very difficult task after what has occurred over the past 50 years and the past 50 months—only if the people in Northern Ireland see that authority rests with the Government here.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman must surely admit that the only way in which confidence can be rebuilt is for the minority to stop throwing petrol bombs and to take its fair and responsible part in the establishment of a new police force.

Mr. Foot: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was the third convert, but we still have to work on him before he is converted to making the law there conform to our form of law here.
Hon. Members from Northern Ireland would be much wiser not to use these charges of subversion and petrol bomb throwing and the rest, particularly when they make the charges against hon. Members and Ladies in the Committee. My advice to the Tory Members from Northern Ireland is that they should make up their minds that they have to listen to the


hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster. They have suppressed opposing voices for 50 years, but they have to listen now, and they had better try to do it with patience and good manners.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South tried to instruct us about how British police should be governed when they went to Northern Ireland. He, too, had better be a bit careful. He has a murkey ancestry. Perhaps in the year 1798 his ancestors were throwing petrol bombs. One of his ancestors, William Orr, had a very gallant record and was martyred in 1798 for rebelling against the British Government. No doubt in those days he could have been described as—and I intend it entirely as a compliment—the Devlin of South Down.

The Temporary Chairman: Fascinating history though this may be, he was not in the British police force. Would the hon. Gentleman please concentrate on that?

Mr. Foot: He was described as an Irish martyr. I was trying to introduce a note of calm and confidence into the House in order to appease the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to tell him that he had better be more careful in the charges he slings around against some hon. Members.

Captain Orr: As a matter of interest, I had another ancestor who was master of the Orange Lodge at Fintona.

Mr. Foot: I thought that things were going from good to worse. I thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had cleared out of that Orange Lodge a long time ago.
I do not want to pursue the case further. How we are to carry out the recommendations of the Hunt Committee is a matter of extreme importance. I hope that no hon. Member opposite will dare to tell us in these debates that the Hunt Committee recommendations should be carried out until he has ensured that this recommendation is carried out by Her Majesty's Government and that they have responded to the appeal made by my two hon. Friends from Northern Ireland, who have told the House the truth, who are waking up the whole of the country to the truth and making people realise that discussions of Irish affairs are here to stay for a

long time not just for many nights but for many months to come. Only by this House dealing with Irish affairs will we stop the bloodshed and bring peace to that unhappy country.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Pounder: Tonight, and particularly in discussing this Amendment, we have had what one can only describe as a peculiarly Irish situation: two almost identical Amendments being approved or disapproved for reasons which are not immediately clear from the wording of the Amendments.
I support the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and disagree with the motivation behind the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), to whom I apologise for missing the early part of his speech. Any references that I make to his remarks are, therefore, based on what I heard rather than on what I surmise he might have said.
It was inevitable that the Special Powers Act would be trotted out and debated at length tonight. Nobody could reasonably cavil at that because it is a Measure which has generated a great deal of emotion for many years. It is worth recalling, however, what was pointed out in discussion of earlier Amendments: that too much is being read into each Amendment as it is being discussed.
While, as I say, the Special Powers Act is bound to be trotted out like a bogeyman, the most important criterion by which to judge that Measure is the frequency with which it has been used. Thank goodness it has been used sparingly. I say that because I accept that its powers are terrifying.
As one who accepts the Hunt Report in its entirety—if one takes this view one must accept sections 143–4 of the report in the context in which those sections were presented—I agree that there has been in Irish politics at any rate for the last 60 years a tragic history of intermittent violence. It is, therefore, less than fair for hon. Gentlemen opposite to seek to couch their criticisms in emotive language. They should appreciate the situation which has existed


from time to time, with cross-border activities, when it has been necessary to protect the existence of the State and to have somewhat formidable powers in reserve.
Once a situation has developed—perhaps this Measure and the Bill which we will discuss later will cause it to develop—when terrorism can come to an end, then measures like the Special Powers Act will not be required. The sooner that happens the better and I do not believe that there is a Unionist hon. Member who would dissent from a dislike of that Act.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) was gently teased for mentioning some of the legislative differences between the two countries. There is a wide range of Acts covering many facets of life—including companies, property and bankruptcies—where the law is different. It is wrong to imagine—some hon. Members have tried to convey this impression—that the only difference between the legislation of Northern Ireland and that of this House is in the form of the Special Powers Act and the Flags and Emblems Act.
Let us be realistic. The likelihood of a British constable being asked to invoke the Special Powers Act is very remote. Let us get away from the high-flown theories, prejudices and emotions which can so easily be generated on both sides on these occasions. Let us consider the Amendment as it stands and the likelihood of this legislative power being invoked by an English constable. I suggest to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and those who express similar views that they are venting spleen rather than considering the reality of the situation.

Mr. Orme: Although the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) might not agree with some of oar arguments about the Special Powers Act, at least he understands some of the difficulties of British policemen if they were asked to operate alongside members of the R.U.C. in these conditions.
To give hon. Members some idea of what a British police officer might have to do, I would quote Regulation 11 of the Act:

Any person authorised for the purpose by the Civil Authority, or any police constable, or member of any of Her Majesty's Forces on duty when the occasion for arrest arises may arrest without warrant any person whom he suspects of acting or having acted or of being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, or upon whom may be found any article, book, letter, or other document, the possession of which gives ground for such a suspicion, or who is suspected of having committed an offence against these Regulations or of being in possession of any article or document which is being used or intended to be used for any purpose or in any way prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, and anything found on any person so arrested which there is reason to suspect is being so used or intended to be used may be seized.

Mr. James Dickens: That covers just about everything.

Mr. Orme: As my hon. Friend says, that is a comprehensive regulation. It goes on:
Any person so arrested may, on the order of the Civil Authority, be detained either in any of Her Majesty's prisons or elsewhere, as may be specified in the order, upon such conditions as the Civil Authority may direct until he has been discharged by direction of the Attorney-General or is brought before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
Those are the two major provisions affecting individuals which a British police officer may be asked to implement. But as hon. Members know, they have the power to enter any house, to stop any car for any reason, whether there is justification or not, if it is suspected by the officer concerned that the person concerned may be acting contrary to the Special Powers Act.
Imagine a British police officer, who has not, happily, been schooled in such law here, being sent to Northern Ireland where he has the power to knock on any door and to break it in if it is not opened, to arrest any person in the house without giving a reason, take him to the police station, put him in gaol and detain him at the pleasure of the authorities.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent emergency the Army has been operating under the regulation to which he has referred?

Mr. Orme: The Army can operate under its own laws, under the terms of the Army Act. The Army was faced with civil disorder and had the power to take such steps. The Army has not


imprisoned anybody without redress to the civil court, but there are two men in Northern Ireland who have been imprisoned since the summer of this year and who have not yet been brought to a court to answer a charge, and this in a democratic society is a disgrace.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) drew a distinction between what happens in England, Wales and Scotland and what happens in Northern Ireland. But hon. Members representing Ulster constituencies tell us that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. When I was in Northern Ireland many people were carrying Union Jacks and saying how British they were. The fact that they carried those Union Jacks on occasions through the British troops is another matter which I will not go into. If Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, it should be subject to the laws which apply throughout the United Kingdom. It is a disgrace that Northern Ireland cannot ratify a European treaty because of the Special Powers Act, and we are to send British policemen—

The Chairman: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will get back to the Amendment.

Mr. Orme: I appreciate the point. British policemen will have to implement the Special Powers Act, which was praised by a Minister in South Africa, who wished that South Africa had the powers that it contained.

Mr. Fitt: Is it not ironic that a former Minister of Justice in South Africa commended the Special Powers Act, and that it has been used only this afternoon to ban the Springbok rugby team from Northern Ireland?

The Chairman: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that intervention; it is out of order.

Mr. Orme: I will not pursue it, I will leave it on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that, whilst we are discussing this in terms of what British policemen may or may not have to face, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will have to give the Committee assurances of what action the British Gov-

ernment have taken, with the Northern Ireland Government, to have the Special Powers Act amended.
The success of the reforms in Northern Ireland will be judged by the results the abolition of the Special Powers Act, the implementation of democracy by allowing Derry, for instance, to be taken over by the Nationalists, and the question of the B Specials being reformed in a democratic manner.

9.45 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. These may be issues, but I am afraid they do not come within this Amendment.

Mr. Orme: The point I was making, in passing, was that these will be the tests on which the reforms will be judged. Central to those reforms will be the reform of the Special Powers Act.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is well away from the Amendment, which was concerned with what the police have to do if they are sent from this country.

Mr. Orme: The point that I am trying to make, Mr. Irving—I have not referred to it incessantly, but it is at the back of my mind—is the fact that the British police will have to deal both with the Special Powers Act and with the Flags and Emblems Act. I feel that the British police force should be instructed about those powers. I do not want the British police when they go to Northern Ireland to have a little Gestapo book in their pockets containing the Special Powers Act. When they go to Northern Ireland, I want to see the law applied in the same way as it is in this country. Where there are differences, as there are bound to be, then intelligence must be used to get over them. But the stumbling-block will be the carrying out of the Flags and Emblems Act and the Special Powers Act.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since I am sure the hon. Gentleman's words will be weighed carefully outside the House, would he take back the suggestion of British policemen with Gestapo books in their pockets? It is not likely to help the police in a difficult task, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will regret having made such a remark. Furthermore, would he not accept that it is the special circumstances which are the problem, not


simply the Special Powers Act, and that it may be necessary for policemen when faced with a situation involving certain acts of violence to be armed with additional powers which they do not possess in this country?

Mr. Orme: The British Army are in Northern Ireland to maintain that type of law and order. The police are not being sent there to defend the frontier. I would make it absolutely clear that my remark was not intended to reflect on the British police. If it was thought to be a reflection, I withdraw it. It was not meant in that way.
The discussion on these Amendments has made crystal-clear what is involved. We want some assurance from the Minister of State that the Government will act and we want a time limit on legislation. We want to see the abolition of this legislation, and we will not be satisfied until that is done.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I should like, first, to deal with the subsidiary theme involving the second part of paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 9. It is our intention that gradually the two sets of disciplinary regulations of the two forces will be assimilated. I hope that it is also the intention of the Northern Ireland Government. But we cannot accept that part of the Amendment since it is stated in terms that it shall first have been assimilated. This might be impossible in the operation of the whole of the legislation.
To turn to the other part of the Amendment, there is something in the purely technical argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), although his speech attracted some scorn. There are technical difficulties precisely about the width of the Amendment. They arise directly from the fact that there are local orders, situations and regulations which it is impossible to assimiliate across the whole front of the law. That does not affect the general principle which has been advanced by my hon. Friends, and certainly I shall not try to escape from answering it. However, I want them to appreciate that, technically, the Amendment is extremely difficult from the point of view of the police forces.
One is bound by two problems. The first of them is that the mutual aid agreements existing already, especially those between the different forces of England and Wales, have implicit in them the concept that the law for the aiding constable must be the same as that for the aided constable. That is quite basic, and hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), were correct in pointing to the anomalies and difficulties which arise when two constables are asked to carry out their duties in different ways when they are together involved in an operation.
That is the first point, and it is a very large-scale difficulty. The second point was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). I am sorry that he is not here at the moment, because he asked me to deal with it. It arises from the constable's declaration, and I promised that I would deal with it under this Amendment.

Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. and learned Friend has been here for most of these debates. He told me that the hon. Lady had promised to deal with the matter, and he asked me to make a note of her reply.

Mrs. Williams: No criticism is intended in what I said. I was concerned only that the right hon. and learned Member should be informed that I had dealt with his point.
It makes it clear that a constable, in carrying out his duties without favour, fear, malice or ill-wind, broadly speaking will uphold the law wherever he finds himself. That does not give him direct powers and duties in relation to the law. It is a declaration of conduct and behaviour rather than one which confers powers on the constable. However, the right hon. and learned Member was not wrong in suggesting that the constable's declaration is binding on any man so long as he is carrying out the duties of a constable, wherever he may be.
These two difficulties arise in the case of police forces being sent to Northern Ireland under a mutual aid agreement. I should put as clearly as possible to the Committee, therefore, precisely what was intended by my right hon. Friend when


he gave the assurance that he did on Second Reading. He said:
I do not expect, nor would it be my intention, that any British policeman who went over on short term for mutual aid in the particular circumstances we were envisaging earlier"—
that is, the circumstances governed by the Bill—
would operate the Special Powers Act. This is not something which should be required of him. It would be improper for us to expect it, because he would not fully understand the powers he would be operating."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1969; Vol. 791, c. 1002.]
That was my right hon. Friend's promise, and it is one which is bound up with not putting a British police constable in a situation in which he would be required to use the Special Powers Act.
In short, if a situation were to arise where the Special Powers Act was basic to the control and enforcement of law, it is most unlikely that the Act would operate, in other words, that a mutual aid agreement would be reached.
Further to that, in his remarks, concerned as they are with the sovereignty of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) accused the Government of possibly having some form of tacit understanding or agreement with the Northern Ireland Government. There is a tacit agreement which I shall make overt. That was my intention before my hon. Friend referred to it. The Northern Ireland Government, also, do not intend that British officers should be used in this way. So that the agreement and understanding between both Governments—and it has been so since the introduction of the Bill—is that British police shall not be put in a position in which they would have to carry out the Special Powers Act—

Mr. McNamara: Mr. McNamara rose—

Mrs. Williams: I strongly suspect that my hon. Friend will find the main point answered if he will wait a moment, because I am trying to deal with the matter as logically as I can.
It is a fact that the policeman from Britain might find himself in a position which led to a certain duality of a kind on which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster put her finger, namely, what happens when a British policeman is present when the pubs are being closed

at 7 o'clock in the evening instead of 10 o'clock in the evening, under the Special Powers Act, or in other situations where the Royal Ulster constable can arrest somebody on suspicion and detain him whereas the British policeman cannot normally do that?
This is a real difficulty, and I do not underestimate it. My hon. Friends are quite right in suggesting that this situation can, in the end, only be rectified by replacement of the Special Powers Act with other legislation. With that, neither my right hon. Friend nor I would wish to differ.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mrs. Williams: I hope that my hon. Friends will have a little patience.
What is to happen regarding that? I suggest three things. First, the Minister of Home Affairs said on 1st October this year that it had been the intention of the Northern Ireland Government to remove the Special Powers regulations. In November, 1968, the Stormont Government so announced their intention. In April they had prepared legislation to do so. They then ceased, because several acts of sabotage took place.

Miss Devlin: Miss Devlin rose—

Mrs. Williams: I must make it as clear as possible, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), that the actions of the Army—and my hon. Friends have agreed that in some cases they have protected the minority—are mainly conducted under the Special Powers regulations. This is a problem with which we have to contend.

Miss Devlin: The point that I want to raise concerns the excuse put forward by the Northern Ireland Government for not repealing the Special Powers Act being the acts of sabotage to which my hon. Friend has referred. Did the Minister of Home Affairs also acquaint my hon. Friend with the fact that it was not under the Special Powers Act that the people who are to stand trial for these acts of sabotage were finally apprehended, but at the instigation of Sir Arthur Young, as the new Inspector-General, under the ordinary legislation? This excuse for the retention of the Special Powers Act falls, because the


people now considered responsible who have been brought before the courts are not charged under that legislation. Therefore, how does this explosion give them a reason to retain the Special Powers Act?

Mrs. Williams: I will not quarrel with my hon. Friend's interpretation, because her knowledge of Northern Ireland is infinite compared with mine. But I should point out that there is a great deal of control under the Special Powers Act which, if it did not exist, would in another country have to be conducted under other legislation.
My hon. Friend rightly pointed to control over the use and possession of offensive weapons. This is controlled entirely under the Special Powers Act in Ulster. In this country we have different legislation controlling the possession and use of offensive weapons. Therefore, any Government who swept aside the Special Powers Act—and I have already indicated that it is the view of the Government that this should happen as soon as possible—would have to bring in other legislation beforehand, or the Northern Ireland Government and, for that matter, the British Army, would find that they did not have the kind of legislation which is essential at present.

Mr. Stratton Mills: What will be the position in a situation similar to that in which the Springboks rugby match has been banned under the—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hamling.]

POLICE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Stratton Mills: What would be the position if a ban similar to that imposed on the Springboks match under the Special Powers Act was imposed? Would it be possible for British police officers to be drafted in to maintain that ban?

Mrs. Williams: As I understand, there is a Public Order Act on the Statute Book in Northern Ireland, and if the match was banned under that Act the police in Britain would be free, under the mutual aid agreement, to take part in it. As things stand, and as the legislation has not been passed, the Northern Ireland Government would act under the Special Powers Act, and, therefore, on the assurance given by my right hon. Friend, the mutual aid arrangement would not operate.

Miss Devlin: I appreciate that one cannot leave a vacuum in legislation, particularly in a situation like that in Northern Ireland, but it is surely the responsibility of this House to exercise its authority under Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act and make the law of this country immediately applicable in Northern Ireland without having to put the Northern Ireland Government in the position of having to find Parliamentary time to put this legislation on their books? There could be an immediate transfer of legislation within a week. This House could do it next week, or even tonight, if it wanted to. The same Section of that Act applies with regard to the British Army. Neither of those two facts justifies the retention of the Special Powers Act, and I am, therefore, still unsatisfied with its continued existence.

The Chairman: Order. That was a very long intervention.

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend is right constitutionally. The House could do that in respect of Northern Ireland, but I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that my right hon. Friend's view is that as far as possible we want to try to carry all sections of opinion in Northern Ireland with us.
We have no doubt—and, for that matter, nor does the Northern Ireland Government—that part of the return to normalcy in Northern Ireland must be the replacement of the Special Powers Act by other kinds of legislation. In fairness to the Northern Ireland Government, I must tell the Committee that they themselves have said that on more than one occasion, and I am inclined to take them at their word.
I understand that the Northern Ireland Government are at the present time considering replacing the Special Powers Act. I want to tell the Committee what that implies. It implies that there are some elements in the Special Powers Act which will need to be embodied in permanent legislation of a kind that is familiar to this House. I refer to such legislation as that which deals with the possession of offensive weapons. Second, there are some elements in the Special Powers Act which might be embodied in regulations such as those which refer to the storage of explosives. The House has decided that this matter must be controlled by regulations made under powers given to Ministers, and I do not think that anyone would regard that as unreasonable.
Thirdly, there are certain powers under the Special Powers Act which are similar to those under our Defence of the Realm Act which can be brought in in a state of emergency, which has been so agreed by Parliament, or where there is a situation of extreme national emergency. This is the type of successor legislation which it is my understanding that the Northern Ireland Government would like to see and which we would certainly like to see, given the opportunity to introduce it. We understand that this is now being considered. I give the Committee the assurance that my right hon. Friend will be discussing this whole matter with the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs, and that we will then, of course, be considering rapidly how any future advance can be made—

Mr. Orme: May I ask—

Mr. John Lee: May I ask my hon. Friend—

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friends may not ask me anything, because I am determined to finish this sentence.
I must make it crystal clear that, in the present situation—although what the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster says is perfectly correct in constitutional terms, it is not all that realistic in direct terms of the present emergency—the control over extremists on both sides by the British Army is largely operating at present under these Acts. Therefore, they must be replaced. I must make that absolutely clear: they cannot simply be swept away and not replaced at all.

Mr. Orme: Can my hon. Friend answer two questions, then? First, will any British police be sent there while these Acts are still on the Statute Book? That is the crucial question. My hon. Friend has admitted that circumstances could arise in which they could be put in a very difficult situation. Second, if the Special Powers Act had not been in operation when the British Army went in, does my hon. Friend really mean that this Parliament could not have given the Army powers to carry out the duties which it is now carrying out?

Mrs. Williams: On the first part of the question, the answer is, as I have said when restating what my right hon. Friend said, that I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that no British police will be sent while the Act is in operation. I can give him the assurance that they will not be sent in situations in which they will have to use the Special Powers Acts or exercise them in any way.
On the second part of the question, I must repeat what I said. Yes, the Army is operating under the Special Powers Act. This is what it is using, for example, to investigate trucks, and so on. Although it might have been open to this House to do so, it would have been a slow and long-drawn-out business because there is no legislation, apart from the emergency legislation which covers the whole United Kingdom, which has not been brought into force, which covers the situation in Northern Ireland. Of course, I do not differ from my hon. Friends in believing that it would be better if there were such legislation; I am only pointing out to them the fact that there was not. I am making no value judgment of any kind.
So I must ask the Committee to agree, on the grounds which I have put forward, and not on the grounds that we believe that the Government want to go to the limit and to agree that the special powers legislation should remain forever on the Statute Book of Northern Ireland—it should not, and its disappearance has a lot to do with the recovery of a normal civilian situation in Northern Ireland—but on the grounds which I have tried to explain, that, as it stands, the Amendment cannot be accepted, although I have a good deal of sympathy with the movement and the attitude behind it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I intervene very briefly to comment on the Minister's points. She has gone a very long way, and against a very difficult background she has acquitted herself manfully—if that is the word I want. She has given again a number of assurances, but throughout today I have been struck by the fact that the House of Commons is virtually being asked to give powers on the basis of a whole series of assurances which are no doubt sincerely meant, but which nowhere appear in this legislation which will bind successor Governments.
We are passing a Bill which will not be implemented by the hon. Lady. It may be implemented by a whole series of future Home Secretaries and no man can say what the future will bring.
All of us hope that there will not be a violent future in Ulster. Which of us dares to say that he is confident that that will not be the case? Therefore, in the end the people of this country, the police service and this Committee has to be concerned not solely with the assurances, well meant as they were. We have to be concerned with the language of the Bill. With the greatest respect, the language of the Bill is not satisfactory. The language of the hon. Lady's assurances goes a good deal of the way, but not far enough. I want to put three points to her. She has quoted the Home Secretary as saying on Second Reading that any British policemen who went to Ireland for a short term of mutual aid would not normally be expected to apply the Special Powers Act.
I understand why this is probably as far as he feels able to go, but there are several caveats. First, the hon. Lady, says that he says on a short term—and

throughout we have been asked to accept that they will only be sent on a short term, weekend football matches and demonstrations. I do not think that any of us can say with certainty that the commitment of British police to Ulster would always be on a weekend or short-term basis. I fear, although I hope differently, that there will be circumstances in which British policemen will find themselves in Ulster for a very much longer period of time than a weekend.
When those policemen are placed in the circumstances of Ulster there will inevitably be cases, emergency cases, when a policeman has to make up his own mind rapidly in a difficult situation, and where he will not know, unless better assurances are given than at the moment, whether he is implementing the Special Powers Act or whether he is simply implementing the ordinary powers that he understands from his training in this country.
I assure the hon. Lady with complete sincerity that I realise she has sought to be helpful, but I do not think that it is sufficient for her simply to rely on the Home Secretary's statement on Second Reading. It does not go far enough.
My second point has to do with possibly the most important assurance that the hon. Lady has been able to give. She said that the Northern Ireland Government will not expect British policemen to implement all those powers. That is a very important assurance. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not have the same regard as I do for the Northern Ireland Government, but the fact that this assurance has been given is an important step forward which the Committee should recognise.
For my third point I quote again the hon. Lady's phrase. I can assure her that she will hear all her phrases from time to time in the weeks and months ahead. She said the police would not be sent into circumstances where the Special Powers Act would apply—not normally. I understand what she means and I am sure this is the intention of the Home Secretary. It would certainly be the wish of the Committee. If the circumstances are such that the Special Powers Act would have no relevance, one may ask what would be the necessity for sending police there at all? I realise that this is possibly pushing it to its


extreme, but it is not enough simply to give that sort of assurance. We should have taken just a few more days and had a Committee stage upstairs, which I would have greatly preferred. Then the hon. Lady, who is most reasonable in these things, would have seen that it would have been wise to place on the Statute Book one or two of the assurances she has given.
It is not always impossible to put into a Bill the intentions of the Government. I will not press this to a Division, but the police who have to implement the law as it stands, and not as Ministers have stated in the House of Commons, would have been helped if some of the important assurances that have been given could have been placed on the Statute Book and not simply left for the Committee to argue about late at night.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Fitt: Many of my hon. Friends and I were extremely concerned about the reply given by the Minister of State. We have been told that British police may not normally be used to implement the Special Powers Act and that that is not the intention of the Government, but we have not been given any guarantee as to the final repeal of that Act. In view of the unsatisfactory reply given by my hon. Friend—for which I do not blame her personally, but it was a result of the package deal between the two Governments—I must ask my hon. Friends to vote for this Amendment.

Mr. Carlisle: I did not intend to intervene until I heard the last few words spoken by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I hope that if the hon. Member does force the Amendment to a Division hon. Members will not support him in the Division Lobby. I thought the speech of the Minister of State one of reasonableness and moderation, and one which should have been accepted by this Committee.
It is impossible to write into the Bill the words suggested in the Amendment. I do not see that it is ever possible to put into the Bill the fact that police who go on a mutual exercise shall not carry out in all respects the law which applies in that country at that time. That is basic to the working of this Bill. There-

fore, the Amendment is unworkable and should be rejected.
I was grateful, as I am sure everyone in this Committee was, for the hon. Lady's comments about the Special Powers Act. It must be the wish of all on both sides of the Committee to see the removal from the Statute Book of that Act at the earliest possible moment. One wishes to see the Act replaced, as she said, by alternative permanent legislation where that is necessary.
I welcome, as the hon. Lady welcomed, the fact that the Northern Ireland Government, under Major Chichester-Clark in November last year, and the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland in October this year indicated the intention of the Northern Ireland Government to do away with the Special Powers Act. We should give that Government the opportunity to carry out that undertaking. Before they can do so a period of law and order, of peace and calm and of quiet—words used by the Home Secretary in a debate in this House referring to the time when the Special Powers Act should be abolished—is needed.

Mr. Molloy: You will probably rule me out of order, Mr. Irving, when I start my speech by saying that the real essence of what we are talking about is that there is a minority of British citizens who have suffered in a dastardly manner in part of the United Kingdom and it would be wrong of any hon. Member debating this Amendment not to have that in mind. It would be quite impossible if we are to introduce a Measure of this sort not to have constantly in our minds why we are introducing it. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill says—

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I am afraid the hon. Member is entering on to a Second Reading speech, and he cannot do that on this Amendment.

Mr. Molloy: Do you tell me, Mr. Irving, that I cannot refer to the Bill that has been printed at any stage when we are discussing the Bill? It says:
The Bill makes provision whereunder police forces in Great Britain may be more closely associated with the Royal Ulster Constabulary,
If I had been drafting the Bill, I should have put it the other way round, so that


the Royal Ulster Constabulary could be more closely associated with the police forces in Great Britain. If we had it that way round we might not have bean in this dilemma.
Some Unionist Members opposite have had to dig very deep to justify the retention of the Special Powers Act and to explain how difficult it might be for British policemen operating in Northern Ireland to acquaint themselves with some of the laws there. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) referred to breathalysers and drunken drivers. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) referred to the situation apropos the Springbok matches. What in essence those hon. Members are calling in aid is a couple of drunken drivers and racialists. What is happening with regard to the Springbok matches is to the disgust of Britain, and I hope that hon. Members opposite feel the same as me about apartheid. So that is a "bum" argument.
The fact of the matter is that there are two crucial issues here. If legislation which is designed to make a contribution to easing and ultimately ending the scandalous state of affairs in Northern Ireland is not to be properly constructed, it would be better that we left it alone. If British policemen and their officers are sent to Northern Ireland and they then become involved under a strange Act and operate in a manner foreign to that in which they would operate in England, Wales or Scotland, there will be a spreading of that which is abhorrent and vulgar in Northern Ireland.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister of State's heart is with us, but her argument seems to suggest that she was being cribbed and cabined by constitutional issues and previous legislation. I believe that we must overcome this. If we are to succeed in restoring decency in Northern Ireland, before we proceed with this Measure the existing repugnant Special Powers Act should be swept away and something like we have suggested from these benches put in its place.

Mr. Roebuck: I was very disappointed with the contribution of the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). I expected a much wiser contribution from him. As he concluded his collection of clichés I waited to hear from him the words,

"I now declare this bazaar well and truly open". His contribution was irrelevant. The only real contribution to the debate has come from this side.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State is a most enchanting parliamentary performer. She has clearly kissed the Blarney Stone. It is very difficult to resist some of the things she says because she can make the foulest arguments smell like Chanel No. 5, if only for a short time. Fortunately, I have had some time to reflect upon what she said. I want to ask her one or two legal questions which will help to determine this issue.
Under the Special Powers Act, does the power of arrest belong to the constable alone, or does it reside also with the citizen? My hon. Friend will appreciate the importance of this question. If everybody has this power, how can anybody say to a policeman, "You shall not exercise the power of arrest", because they are then suggesting to someone that he should not fulfil his legal obligations as a citizen? If my hon. Friend will elucidate this point for us we can discover how worth while is the assurance from the Northern Ireland Government.
Can any superior officer direct a constable to effect an arrest, or is that a matter on which the constable must come to his own determination? Is it possible for Sergeant X to say to Constable Y, "You must arrest that man"? Perhaps my hon. Friend will answer that. Will the officers sent to Northern Ireland be subject to the complaints procedure to which they are subject when performing their work in Great Britain?
I come now to the argument which my hon. Friend advanced in regard to the wording of the Amendment and the reference to offences. She took up a point here from a most dubious source, if I may say so; namely, the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I ask my hon. Friend to exercise a little common sense. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been at the Guinness again. I put to my hon. Friend a point with regard to our licensing laws, which—very appropriately, if I may say so—was raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman The licensing laws differ in various parts of the country, but, so far as I know, this does not mean that constables have different powers or


that one would wish them to exercise different powers. Perhaps my hon. Friend will deal with that anomaly in the business before the Committee.
The most substantial point against my hon. Friend is that which relates to the Special Powers Act. She and the Government are asking those of us who represent English, Scottish and Welsh constituencies to say to the decent English "Bobby", who is paid out of the rates as well as out of taxes, "We want to whip you off somewhere else. When you became a constable, you went to the magistrates' court and you swore an oath to preserve the Queen's Peace in a certain way. We now say that you must go across the water and operate an entirely different set of laws—not just a question of whether the licensing laws say that public houses must close at 9 or half—past 9 but a totally different system."
I ask my hon. Friend to ponder that further. What am I to say to the London "Bobby" in my constituency who does his useful work patrolling in a Panda car and who knows that if he steps out of line with our ordinary rule of law in Great Britain there may well be a complaint under, I think, Section 64 or Questions in the House and that sort of thing?

Are we to say to him, "Just go across the water to another part of the United Kingdom, and you can forget all that stuff; it is all junk"? Does not my hon. Friend think that that would be an extremely dangerous thing to do, to begin with? I see that she agrees, and I am delighted. If my hon. Friend is with me on that, I shall leave the point.
My hon. Friend has told us that certain processes have been gone through; she has not defined them, but something is in the air. There has been talk over the Guinness in some smoke-filled back room, apparently, about some alteration in the Special Powers Act. May we know a little more about that? Has my hon. Friend done a deal with the authorities in Northern Ireland about it? Has she a distinct and definite promise that, if the Bill goes on the Statute Book, there will by a certain date be repeal of the Special Powers Act?
I tell my hon. Friend frankly that in the light of the argument which she has so far advanced, unless I receive a much more comprehensive and satisfactory reply I shall be very tempted to join my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in the Lobby and vote for the Amendment.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

10.30 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: It is important that my hon. Friend the Minister of State should spell out in more detail than she has done so far exactly what she intends us to understand from the statement which she made. I think that we could, perhaps, go some way with her to accept the need for the Special Powers Act at present. Let us assume that premise of her argument for the moment. If so, and we have the undertaking that there will be negotiations with Mr. Porter, that is a valuable undertaking and a step forward.
But what if Mr. Porter loses the luggage? What if he does not tell us what we want? Are we to have a programme of reforms spelt out for us in a way that we can accept? Are we to have an undertaking from my hon. Friend that we can expect, as a result of future talks with Mr. Porter, an undertaking that within a reasonable time, perhaps a few years, there will be legislation here or at Stormont which will deal effectively with those parts of the Special Powers Acts which it might be necessary to retain by regulations under the Explosives Acts, provisions of the offensive weapons legislation and other regulations and Acts which would meet our main objections? This is important, and I think that what we hear from my hon. Friend will determine the actions of many hon. Members.
I think that it is Section 1(4) of the Special Powers Act which is a blanket provision that any act or omission may be deemed an offence under the Act. On top of that there is the provision that the burden of proof is on the accused to show that he is not guilty, and not on the prosecutor to prove his case. Those provisions go contrary to the whole history and writ of the common law. It would be something if we could have an undertaking that people will not have action taken against them under those provisions.
All that my hon. Friend said in her speech referred specifically to the Special Powers Act, but the Flags and Emblems Act is also legislation that we find nauseating. When my right hon. Friend

the Home Secretary recently made a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) on the position with regard to the Special Powers Act and the Flags and Emblems Act, he carefully drew a distinction between the Special Powers Act, which was repugnant to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Flags and Emblems Act, which is not, but which is repugnant to us—and to many people in Northern Ireland. Both on Second Reading and now my hon. Friend has studiously avoided replying to this point, and it is something we would like to know about.
In addition, we have the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) about two men, Frank Cord and Maladry McGurran, alleged to be imprisoned under the Special Powers Act. Are they or are they not, and if not, what are they gaoled under? Let us know. We are not trying to make an issue out of it. We want information, and maybe from the information we can make an issue. Let us at least know the facts.
Republican clubs are still banned in Northern Ireland under the actions of the then Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Craig. The way in which he dealt with that matter was a tremendous fiasco. We want a healthy society. A considerable number of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster and, indeed, all the hon. Members for Northern Ireland seats, still attend republican conventions to choose candidates, in one case resulting fortunately or unfortunately—whichever way one looks at it—in the election of my hon. Friend. Those were illegal organisations, and that alone is a farce. If there is law, it should be enforced; if the law is not to be enforced, it should not be on the Statute Book.
We want an undertaking from my hon. Friend. If she can give it, perhaps we can withdraw our Amendment and not divide the Committee. We want an undertaking about the timetable and the progress we may expect from the conversations with Mr. Porter. What is the position under the Flags and Emblems Act? Also, will she explain the foolish position with republican clubs and the position of the two unfortunate individuals who are in gaol?

Mr. McMaster: Having listened to this carefully reasoned debate, I should like to ask the hon. Lady one or two questions, because I, too, am in some doubt about her earlier statements.
It is clear that if the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland calls for the assistance of the British police, there must be an emergency, which is more than just a football match, which is worrying him. If the British police are called to assist the Northern Ireland police in a situation such as those which have arisen in the past few months, they will clearly have to employ legislation as it stands. I think that I speak on behalf of all my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland when I say that I deplore the Special Powers Act. We feel that the powers are badly drafted and that the hon. Lady's suggestion that they should be replaced by other legislation should be put into effect as quickly as possible.
We also look forward to the time when people, particularly extremists, will behave in a much more reasonable fashion in Northern Ireland. If there is to be protest, such protest should be conducted in a democratic fashion and not consist of attacks on the authorities, whether the Army or police, whether the Northern Ireland police, or the British police assisting the Northern Ireland police.
To be realistic for a moment, we have seen violence in Northern Ireland over a long period; we have seen subversion and attacks, particularly on the police, which were totally unprovoked. Therefore, whether the Special Powers Act or other legislation applies, if the British police are needed to assist the police in Northern Ireland, special provisions will be needed to meet the emergency.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned the Flags and Emblems Act. I think that most hon. Members are aware of the trouble in this connection. It is a trouble which could easily exist in Great Britain. In some parts of Great Britain, the display of a flag representing Black Power could easily lead to a breach of the peace. Therefore, the problem before a policeman, whether a Northern Ireland policeman or a policeman from Great Britain, is simply to prevent something which could easily provoke a breach of

the peace. The main duty of the police is to prevent a breach of the peace.

Miss Devlin: My hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS:"He is 'The hon. Member'."] I should like to call him my hon. Friend; he makes the third of those who have been converted to opposition to the Special Powers Act.
The hon. Member has instanced Black Power flags being flown in England. He is well aware of the Public Order Act, 1936, which deals with that situation in this country. Under it, provocation has to be proved in court. If provocation is proved, action may be taken; if it is not proved, action is not taken. The case is fought in a democratic court. On numerous occasions flags of every country and every race may be seen from Trafalgar Square to Hyde Park Corner and nobody objects, because this is a democratic country to that extent.
Therefore, if what the hon. Member is complaining about is that he may be provoked by the sight of a green, white and gold flag, or a blue flag with five white stars, he may take us to court and we may there argue it out. But let us do it that way, as equals before a just law.

Mr. McMaster: The answer to the hon. Lady is surely that under the 1936 Act action can be taken in the courts in advance, when there is a fear of a breach of the peace. Exactly the same situation applies in Northern Ireland, whether it is a Union Jack, or an Eire tricolour, or the swastika. There are various parts of Northern Ireland, as there are of Great Britain, where the flying of such emblems, or the parading of them, would provoke the majority living in that area, or it might reasonably be apprehended that it would provoke them.

Miss Devlin: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell me that at any time in Northern Ireland anyone has ever, under the Flags and Emblems Act, been convicted for flying the Union Jack? Is he trying to tell us that the system of law is so meticulous that the national flag of the country becomes illegal under the Act we are trying to get rid of? If so, he has produced a better argument than we have for getting rid of it.

Mr. McMaster: I do not want to detain the Committee for long on this


point. I have already made it clear that the primary duties of the police, whether R.U.C. or English, will be to prevent action likely to provoke a breach of the peace. The purpose of this Amendment has been missed by the Committee, and I believe that it is unnecessary. The main purpose of the police, whether applying the emergency regulations, which we do not like, or other laws with a similar import, will be to prevent riots.
I would simply ask the Minister what is the Government's intention in this respect? Does she agree that if the police in Great Britain are called to Northern Ireland it will be under an emergency, such as we have had, and therefore to keep the peace, stop looting and violence, which may make it necessary to use some special powers?

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I want to appeal to my hon. Friends to reconsider their decision to divide on this Amendment and to question whether it would be wise for them to do so. I speak as one who detests the Special Powers Act as much as they do and who considers that it would be quite wrong for a member of a British police force going to Northern Ireland under the provisions of this Bill to be called on to exercise powers under the Special Powers Act.
The question is how can we achieve that? My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—and I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber—was a little ungenerous in his comments on my right hon. Friend's speech. I do not think that he appreciated quite how far she had gone in her assurances. I equally want to appeal to my right hon. Friend to go just a little further to help allay anxieties which exist on this side of the Committee. First, as to what has been said. There was anxiety in many parts of the Committee when she used a phrase with the word "normally" in it. I think she has been misquoted, but I have not got her exact words. My recollection was that what she said was that a constable from this country would not normally be sent to Northern Ireland in a situation which required to be dealt with under the Special Powers Act.
My hon. Friend left it vague whether in such a situation a British constable would

be called upon to exercise any powers under that Act. Indeed, she went on immediately afterwards to recognise, very frankly, the immense dilemma in which a British constable could be if he were alongside a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who was empowered to and was exercising powers under that Act, as to whether or not he should do so.
10.45 p.m.
This comes to the crux of the matter. I was greatly assured when my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in answer to an intervention by one of my hon. Friends that, while she could not give an assurance that no British officer would be sent to Northern Ireland while the Special Powers Act is still in force, none would be sent to Northern Ireland to exercise the powers under the Special Powers Act. I am not here quoting her exact words.
But we are still left with the unanswered question: what is to be the position of a constable in the dilemma which she recognised until such time as the Special Powers Act is replaced by other legislation? My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) put his finger on the crux of the matter when he asked: what is the position of the constable? Can he be ordered by a superior officer of the Ulster Constabulary to exercise powers under this Act, or is it to be left to his decision and his own discretion?
The distinction is crucial. If it is the latter, surely, in the light of the assurances which we have been given tonight, it can be made clear that a British officer would not be expected to exercise any particular powers of arrest in any circumstances where he would not arrest a person in this country, and that, although he might have the power to do so, he would not do so. If he could be ordered to exercise powers of arrest which would be repugnant to everything that he had been taught and brought up to believe to be the correct exercise of a constable's powers in this country, he would be put in an impossible dilemma.
The assurance for which I ask my hon. Friend is that, if she is able to do so, she should answer this question tonight. If she is not able to do so and feels she needs to take further advice from the Law Officers, she should tell us that she will do so and we could then return to this matter on Report. In the light of the


firm assurances that she has given as to the intention of this Government and of the Northern Ireland Government as to the way in which British officers would not be expected to go to Northern Ireland to enforce the Special Powers Act, if she can spell out more specifically the precise position of the individual constable I would feel fully satisfied with the assurances that she has given.
The distinction is important, because it could affect the whole future of an officer who had refused to exercise these powers, as to whether he had acted properly or been guilty of a serious indiscipline. I hope that the hon. Lady will address the Committee again.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I am concerned that I might have to vote against the Government unless the assurances which were so eloquently asked for by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) are given. Most of us hope that there will be an immediate change in Northern Ireland, but it is hard to get unanimity on any facet of the trouble there.
Here we have, rather belatedly in some respects, an admission from everyone that the Special Powers Act must go, and go as soon as possible. People I know in Northern Ireland who are anxious to cooperate in most of the things they are doing there and who admire the Home Secretary for the almost impossible task he has achieved, would welcome it, if it could be said tonight that a real attempt was to be made to rid the country of this obscenity in law. That is what they want to know and if this can be said to my hon. Friend, who is a reasonable man dealing with a very unreasonable set of circumstances in his native country, he would withdraw because he does not wish to vote against that Front Bench any more than I do. I hope the hon. Lady will reassure him.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Will the hon. Member accept from me—and it is on record—that this is not the first time that a desire to end the Special Powers Act as soon as possible has been expressed from this side. The evidence is in HANSARD.

Mr. Mahon: Of course I accept that. We could all exacerbate a difficult situation in that country. I am trying to em-

phasise that we have an element of unanimity which I have not seen in a very long experience in this House and which I would regard as almost miraculous. Can we not latch on to this unanimity and express loudly and forcibly that this will happen, and fairly soon?

Mr. Fitt: Mr. Fitt rose—

Mr. Mahon: I will give way, but can I have an assurance that this will be done?

Mr. Fitt: Assurances by Unionist hon. Members on the other side are of absolutely no value because they have no say in the ranks of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party as to whether the Northern Ireland Government will abolish the Special Powers Act. Any decision, on whether such steps should be taken or not, is taken by a lot of backwoodsmen Ulster Unionist M.P.s. there who would not listen to hon. Members on the other side.

Mr. Mahon: I agree with my hon. Friend—and he is my hon. Friend—in many things. Somebody, sometime, somewhere in Northern Ireland has to think and rethink this situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There are people in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Orme: Listen to who is cheering him.

Mr. Mahon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing me?

Mr. Orme: I just said "Listen to who is cheering him" when my hon. Friend called for that rethinking because they are the very people opposite who perpetrated what has gone on in that country for 50 years.

Mr. Mahon: It has gone on for 50 years, as I know. My knowledge of Northern Ireland is as extensive as most people's and I have lived in an atmosphere in Liverpool where all sorts of people worked together only because they learnt that it was impossible to try to live on any other basis. We joined all shades of political opinion, we joined trade unions and co-operated with one another. I do not care what happened in Northern Ireland in the past. The border will disappear like snow in a night, and this has to be achieved in tranquility if it can be. There has been too much bloodshed.
I cannot see any reason why deeply Christian people cannot live together. The people there are deeply spiritual. Somewhere we have to find a catalyst in Northern Ireland to bring this about, because the situation there must not be allowed to go on one day longer.
I have a deep affection for the country I was born in. I have also a very deep affection for the country from which my forebears sprang, and no doubt it will be said that I am trying too hard to get across the barriers between the decent people of Northern Ireland.
Here, we have a chance. I am convinced that if this Committee said in a forceful way, stressing it with every fibre that we can command, that we are agreed that this excrescence of a law, the Special Powers Act, must go, we should be told that it is to go quite soon.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I want to try to clear up one or two points which have been raised.
I must be completely honest and begin by saying that, if what some of my hon. Friends want is an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will take over the full legislative power of the Stormont Government, I cannot give it. Since I cannot, they will understand that I cannot be precise about the timing under which the Special Powers Act will disappear. It is not in the control of my right hon. Friend or me to dictate that timing.
I have already gone as far as I can by saying that I am inclined, as is my right hon. Friend, to take the Stormont Government at their word when they say that they wish to get rid of the Special Powers Act. They stated that in November, 1967, and again in October, 1968. We believe that they mean it and, in consequence, that they will enter into discussions about how rapidly it can be done.
I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), if not all my hon. Friends, appreciates that that is to go further than anyone yet has done from this Dispatch Box, and that it has considerable significance.
In answer to the point made about the Flags and Emblems Act, rather like the Special Powers Act, the sweeping away

of it depends on the creation of a situation in which it can be swept away. Some of my hon. Friends felt strongly about the Rhodesian flag going up in Westminster not far from this House when Rhodesia declared what, in effect, was her unilateral revolt. It was a view with which I had considerable sympathy. They felt that the flag should not be allowed to fly. In the event, it was permitted to stay, although various people made attempts to get it down. This is only an illustration of the extent to which, in certain circumstances, tokens can create great feeling.
I believe that such an Act in Britain would be seen to be very odd, not to say nonsensical. I hope that the same attitude will commend itself to the Stormont Government, but I can only reiterate that we have to create the situations in which these Acts begin to melt away.
I turn now to what my hon. and learned Friend for Derby, North raised, and I will answer him as clearly as I can. No requirement can be placed upon a constable to operate the Special Powers Act or make an arrest at any time. Furthermore, my use of the word "normally" had no implications. If I may rephrase it, it is not the intention of my right hon. Friend nor, we understand, of the Stormont Government to place any British constable in a situation in which he will use the Special Powers Act. The only reason I used the word "normally" was to be wholly honest with the Committee and indicate that there might be situations into which British constables were sent where an Ulster constable might occasionally use the Special Powers Act. I cannot take the guarantee to cover the Ulster constable because of that important responsibility. It has no other implications.
Of great importance with regard to the Special Powers Act is the fact that no British constable provided under mutual aid could conceivably be disciplined for a refusal to use any provision of the Special Powers Act. If by a strange anomaly the intentions of both sides were broken through in such a way that he was ordered by a senior officer to do so, he could not be disciplined for refusing. He could not be disciplined for the simple reason that the discipline that applies to him is the discipline solely of


his home police force and not of the R.U.C. Therefore, this would not be seen as an offence in terms of his own police force.
11.0 p.m.
If my hon. Friends were to believe—and it would be an extreme belief—that a British chief constable could be found with, as it were, a lingering sympathy for the Special Powers Act and was prepared to take disciplinary steps against such a constable because he had refused an order made under the Act, there is the final safeguard of appeal to the Home Secretary. There can thus be no possible loophole. I hope that my hon. Friends will feel that this goes some way to meeting their wishes.
On my hon. Friend's final worry about the Special Powers Act, I repeat that we believe that we must act with and through Stormont and that we believe that the Northern Ireland Government's intentions are to move ahead. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who made a sensible point about this recognises that, whether we like it or not, at the moment British forces are protecting Catholics against Protestant extremists and Protestants against I.R.A. operations. We dislike the Act as much as my hon. Friends do and we accept the word of the Northern Ireland Government that they do, too, and that they will terminate it as quickly as possible. Beyond that, I cannot be expected to go now.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Let us take the case of a British policeman in Ulster given an instruction by his superior officer of the R.U.C. When that British policeman judges that the instruction arises under the Special Powers Act and is beyond what would be his normal instructions in this country, would the hon. Lady advise him to refuse to obey that order? Secondly, supposing that there are two constables together, one of the R.U.C. and the other from a British force. The R.U.C. constable, in pursuit of his lawful duty under the Special Powers Act, gets into difficulties. Is it any duty of his British colleague to go to his aid? I ask these questions to illustrate the sort of practical difficulty in which our policemen may be placed.

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has raised questions of considerable detail and it is difficult for me to answer them in such detail. But I repeat that the whole situation will be discussed in detail between the chief constables and the Home Office, so the first situation he postulates should not arise in any event. I cannot say that it could not conceivably arise, but it certainly should not. If it were to arise, the British police officer would not be expected to carry out the order, for the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend and me today.
In the second case raised by the hon. Gentleman, we would not expect a situation to arise in which a R.U.C. constable called upon his fellow constable from Britain to aid him in ways which might only be covered by the Special Powers Act because, as we keep reiterating, it is not our intention to use this Bill in a situation in which the Special Powers Act could be used.

Mr. Roebuck: Will my hon. Friend deal with the question I put about the powers of a constable? She has said, gratifyingly, that no senior officer of police is in a position to order a junior rank to make an arrest. Is there not, however, a liability on a constable to act, if the Special Powers Act is there, and to use that Act? Would he not be in breach of his duty if he so neglected to make an arrest along these lines?
Can my hon. Friend clear up the point I asked in specific terms? This is the Committee stage and we are entitled to expect straight answers to straight questions. What about the question of power to arrest? Does this reside solely in R.U.C. constables in regard to this Act, or does it lie in every citizen?

Mrs. Williams: I have already replied to the first part of my hon. Friend's question. In the latter case, power to arrest can reside in every citizen, whether he resides in Northern Ireland or Great Britain.

Miss Devlin: I am not sure at the moment which of us is confused about what my hon. Friend is saying. My hon. Friend is saying either that she does not accept the Amendment, or she is assuring us that she does accept it.
I should like to remind the Committee that the terms of the Amendment are, in Clause 1, page 2, line 16, at end insert:
Provided that no constable shall be required to arrest any person for an offence, or prevent the commission of any offence which would not be an offence in Great Britain.
My hon. Friend keeps giving us assurances that it will not happen. With respect to my hon. Friend, to the Labour Party and to the Government of this country, whereas I should much prefer to see my right hon. and hon. Friends sitting there after the next election, there is no guarantee about that. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are sitting on the Government benches, what will their action be? They are not bound to give any assurances or guarantees.
It appears to me that my hon. Friend is giving us an assurance of acceptance of the Amendment. I may be ignorant of Government pride, but if my hon. Friend is accepting the Amendment I cannot see why she will not accept it. If she is not accepting it she should say that she is not accepting it. But she cannot say that she is not accepting the Amendment and then continue to ask us to accept her assurances. Either she accepts the Amendment, as her assurances imply that she does, or she does not and we proceed to a Division.

Mr. Fitt: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). The terms of the Amendment have been made clear to the Committee, although the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) tried to complicate the issue by bringing in all the differences in law in Northern Ireland and in this country. However, what generated the Amendment was the fear that British policemen would be called upon to operate the Special Powers Act and the Flags and Emblems Act.
The Minister of State has repeatedly said that she cannot envisage circumstances in which a British police officer would be called upon to implement the provisions of either Act. Is that right? Is that an undertaking which we can accept? We know that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament the jurists and the judiciary will interpret the law as it then is. They will not be reading speeches made on Second Reading or in Committee.
The fear expressed by my hon. Friend is at the back of everything that we have said today. There may be a change of Government. In Northern Ireland there could be a Paisley Government. There could be a Powell Government here after the next election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The whole political atmosphere could be revolving on a Paisley-Powell axis. That is why we are so afraid and suspicious. I hope that this does not happen.
I have supported this Government from the day that I came into the House of Commons. It would be with the utmost reluctance that I would find myself in the Lobby against them this evening. But if words in the English language mean anything, my hon. Friend's words must mean that police officers from England will not be used to implement the provisions of the Special Powers Act or the Flags and Emblems Act. If that is the Government's contention now, they should put down an Amendment to the Bill on Report and we would know.
I ask my hon. Friend to repeat, once again, that no British police officer, under any circumstances, will be asked to implement the provisions of the Special Powers Act as it is in operation in Northern Ireland today. If my hon. Friend will give me that assurance, if she will say that the Government will write this into the Bill, I will not push the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Rose: It would be a pity if the Committee were to divide on a matter of such significance after my hon. Friend has given as much of an assurance as she can in her position. Nevertheless, I am in a difficult position, in that I fully support the Amendment and I do not want to be pushed into the Opposition Lobby unnecessarily.
I think that my hon. Friend can help us out of this dilemma by telling the Committee that she will reconsider this, bearing in mind what has been said, and bearing in mind that there is not a reference to the Special Powers Act as such in the Amendment, and that perhaps on Report she will bring in a proposal that is acceptable to hon. Members on this side of the Committtee who have no confidence in any assurance from the Stormont Government. If my hon. Friend is not able to do that on Report, it will be open to my hon. Friends and


myself to table an Amendment on which it might be necessary to divide the House.
It would be a pity to divide the Committee tonight, after the Government have gone a long way towards meeting the views of my hon. Friends and myself, but

if it comes to a Division I shall have to go into the Division Lobby on the Opposition side.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 26, Noes 170.

Division No.11.]
AYES
[11.13 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rose, Paul


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ryan, John


Barnes, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Beaney, Alan
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thorps, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Bidwell, Sydney
Molloy, William
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Booth, Albert
Newens, Stan
Woof, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
O'Halloran, Michael



Dickens, James
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. Gerard Fitt and


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roebuck, Roy
Miss Bernadette Devlin.




NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Murray, Albert


Anderson, Donald
Hamling, William
Neal, Harold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hannan, William
Oakes, Gordon


Bence, Cyril
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Albert E.


Biffen, John
Haseldine, Norman
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Binns, John
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Bishop, E. S.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Blackburn, F.
Hooley, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Horner, John
Park, Trevor


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boston, Terence
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brewis, John
Huckfield, Leslie
Pentland, Norman


Brooks, Edwin
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Pounder, Rafton


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burr
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pym, Francis


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rees, Merlyn


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Clark, Henry
Judd, Frank
Richard, Ivor


Clegg, Walter
Lawson, George
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Concannon, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Conlan, Bernard
Lomas, Kenneth
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Corfield, F. V.
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Crawshaw, Richard
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dalyell, Tam
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
McCann, John
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacColl, James
Slater, Joseph


Dell, Edmund
MacDermot, Niall
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Spriggs, Leslie


Dewar, Donald
McElhone, Frank
Swain, Thomas


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Thornton, Ernest


Dobson, Ray
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Tinn, James


Doig, Peter
Mackie, John
Tuck, Raphael


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Eadie, Alex
McMaster, Stanley
Waddington, David


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ellis, John
Maginnis, John E.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ennals, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ensor, David
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wallace, George


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Manuel, Archie
Watkins, David (Consett)


Faulds, Andrew
Mapp, Charles
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fernyhough, E.
Marks, Kenneth
Wellbeloved, James


Finch, Harold
Mayhew, Christopher
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilkins, W. A.


Ford, Ben
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Forrester, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Gardner, Tony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Garrett, W. E.
Monro, Hector
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Golding, John
More, Jasper
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Goodhart, Philip
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. James Hamilton.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The Question is, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
As many as are of that opinion say Aye—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] At an earlier stage it was agreed by your predecessor in the Chair that Amendment No. 12—[Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Mallalieu. I appear to have confused the position, since that Amendment will arise later, on Clause 4.
The second part of my submission, on a point of order, is simply to ask whether we are to have a debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman: There could easily have been a debate, but no hon. Member rose.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I did. [HON. MEMBERS;: "Sit down."] Further to my point of order. Am I correct in understanding that you did not see me rise, Mr. Mallalieu? [Interruption.] It appears that a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly some of the occupants of the Treasury Bench, who have not ventured to appear during our discussion of this important Bill throughout the day, are now seeking to suppress further discussion by hon. Members who have taken a keen interest in the matter. It is utterly wrong that Government Whips should creep in at this hour and try to prevent hon. Members from—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep to his point of order. Has he anything further to say?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Only that hon. Members who have participated in discussing the detail of the Bill had every reason to suppose that a debate would occur on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. I trust that that debate wall now take place. [Interruption]

The Temporary Chairman: No hon. Member had risen at the time when I started to put the Question. It was, therefore, not possible for the Committee to have a debate on the subject.

Sir D. Renton: Further to my hon. Friend's point of order. You may

possibly have been mistaken, Mr. Mallalieu. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] At the moment when you put the Question, I expected my hon. Friend to initiate a short discussion on that Question. I turned round to see if my hon. Friend intended to do so. I am sure that at the moment I saw him rise to his feet you had not finished collecting the voices: and at that point he asked you if there would be a debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman: I paused for quite a long time. I then started to put the Question. Thereafter it was not possible for hon. Members to rise and attempt to continue the debate.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Further to that point of order. I understand and respect entirely the position into which you have been placed, Mr. Mallalieu. Surely the point is that the Committee is seeking to debate a serious matter and that it is wrong that the opportunity to continue this important debate should be precluded by a focal problem between the point where you sit and where I stand. I assure you that it was my intention, and I thought that I was physically carrying out that intention, to rise to speak on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
The House of Commons is capable of looking at the spirit and reality of things and not simply into the technical optics of the problem. We are concerned with an important matter and it would be wholly wrong if a minor optical problem were to preclude further discussion of it.

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order. Is there any way in which the Committee can be protected from the persistent filibustering tactics of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), to which we have been subjected since shortly after 3.30 this afternoon?

Dr. Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) to ask you to assume the Special Powers Act in this Committee?

The Temporary Chairman: I can understand the disappointment of hon. Members at not being able to continue


the debate. I was expecting one and I looked around to see whether anyone was rising. No one rose until I had begun to collect the voices. Thereafter, whatever the Committee may want, I am not in a position to say more than that a debate is out.

Mr. McNamara: I should like your guidance, Mr. Mallalieu. When we have finished this interesting discussion, shall I be able to move Amendment No. 11? I was trying to call attention to the fact that I wished to move that Amendment.

Mr. Molloy: May we be spared the humbug we have to endure from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)? He rose to a point of order, then discovered that he made a bloomer and was completely confused. Then he sat down and on that slender ground sought to rise on a point of order—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. This is not a point of order. There can be no more debate because I have ruled on the matter.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

PROVISIONS FOR FACILITATING THE ENGAGEMENT OF MEMBERS OF HOME POLICE FORCES FOR PERIODS OF SERVICE IN THE ROYAL ULSTER CONSTABULARY

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'Regulations' to end of line 21 and insert:
'not be deemed to have committed, as a member of his home force, an offence against discipline, until such time as the commission of a disciplinary offence has been substantiated under the Regulations and procedures appropriate to his home force'.
Some of the substance of this Amendment has been covered already by part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). It is important that we should look at it in some detail because among the many copies of holy writ which have been quoted today we have not had a quotation from the Cameron Report.
In the third appendix of that report there is a statement on page 103 which is a summary of Section 24 of the Constabulary Act which deals with the method by which complaints against the police in Northern Ireland are dealt with. It says:
By Section 24 the Inspector-General or his deputy, or any person or persons to be nominated for the purpose by the Minister of Home Affairs may examine on oath into the truth of any charges or complaint preferred against any member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and report thereon to the Minister of Home Affairs. These would appear to be the only provisions for investigation of complaints against any member of the force.
This provision has had an unhappy history. It has been regarded as being used as whitewash for complaints against the R.U.C. Now we have the position where members of the British police forces may be transferred to Northern Ireland for short periods on secondment as opposed to the mutual aid provisions. We should have the situation more into line with procedures for dealing with complaints against the police in this country.
This is the object of the Amendment. I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, when she was replying to part of what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) said, spoke about moving towards some degree of mutuality. I should be grateful if she would indicate, so as to protect British policemen going to Northern Ireland, and also to bring the requirements of the new Royal Ulster Constabulary up to the provisions that we expect in Great Britain, whether the new Police Bill to be introduced in Stormont contains provisions for a procedure for complaint against the police similar to that which exists in Great Britain.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I cannot support the Amendment as drafted, but it gives an opportunity to ask the Minister a further question. I am in some difficulty in comparing subsection (l)(a) with the words in subsection (3). We are dealing only with officers who engage for periods of time on their own voluntary decision in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) seemed to imply that this covered all policemen who might be sent to Northern Ireland. This is not so.


It is a little different from the case of those who are sent compulsorily.
My difficulty is that under subsection (1)(a) an officer serving in Ulster may be dismissed or caused to resign because of an offence he may commit against the discipline imposed upon him there. This is obviously right and sensible. Senior officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary must have the power to discipline men who fall under their command for periods of service. My difficulty is that, looking further into subsection (3), any such person will be deemed to have committed an offence in his home force and if the Inspector-General of the Royal Ulster Constabulary provides a certificate to that effect his home police chief will have to take disciplinary proceedings against him.
As I understood the Minister, she said earlier that a police officer serving in Ulster would be responsible only to his own chief officer for his own discipline code. There is a dfficulty. In practical terms the certificate given by the Inspector-General of the R.U.C. will be in respect of an offence committed under the discipline regulations of that force. It will not be enough for the accused officer to say, "But the Minister of State said in the House of Commons that I would not be under the discipline of anybody except my own force".
I suspect that the answer that the Minister will give is that what she said applied to those who were sent there by the Home Secretary or by their chief constable and not to those who voluntarily engaged. If that is so, I shall be satisfied.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I hope that we can deal with this Amendment fairly quickly. The position is as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) set it out. Any policeman who is sent under the mutual aid arrangements and, therefore, is sent not voluntarily but as a result of these arrangements, is bound by the disciplinary procedures of his home police force. A policeman who volunteers to go for a short service engagement, which is what the Clause is all about, comes under the Royal Ulster Constabulary's disciplinary procedures and is aware of that when he originally signs on for that purpose. It is, therefore, open to the Royal Ulster Constabulary to discipline him if he disobeys its discipline regulations.
If, however, the reprimand amounts to dismissal from the force, or if he should be disciplined and asked to resign from the force, in either event he reverts to his home police force, and at that stage it is for the chief constable of his home force to decide whether any other action falls to him as a result of the grounds upon which the dismissal or resignation takes place. It may well be that the home chief constable will take a different view of the seriousness of the charge from that taken by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In that event, it will be for the chief constable of the home force to decide whether he also requires the resignation of the policeman or his dismissal from the home force. In either event, the constable would be further protected by his right of appeal to the Home Secretary.
The Clause covers any situation in which the Royal Ulster Constabulary takes a particular view of a man who has volunteered for a short-service engagement and his home chief constable takes a different view of the seriousness of the matter. Therefore, the burden of proof, to put it like that, rests on the slighter evidence which would have to be given, in the present situation at least, to the chief constable of the home force.
The implication of the Amendment is that the entire process of proof would have to be gone through all over again. There are major reasons why this would be difficult. It would involve the bringing of witnesses from Northern Ireland to this country to state the reasons upon which the procedure had been based. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) to accept my assurance that, since in any event whatever punishment is involved is subject to the decision of the home police force, what he wants is basically covered not just by an assurance from me, but by subsection (3) of the Clause itself.
I ask the Committee to resist the Amendment on the ground that we do not want to require that the entire procedure arising out of disciplinary matters shall be gone through all over again. To do that would be virtually impossible.

Mr. McNamara: I accept my hon. Friend's assurance. The Amendment was a probing Amendment, intended to ensure


that our fellow citizens in this country had their rights as police officers protected. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Carlisle: Clause 2 is entirely different from Clause 1 in that it deals with members of police forces in England or Wales who choose to go on short engagement to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as recommended in Chapter 7 of the Hunt Report. The Hunt Committee's main consideration in that recommendation, I understand, was the advantage not so much of members of English or Welsh forces taking short-term engagements in Ulster as of members of the Ulster force coming on short-term engagements to English or Welsh forces. The Hunt Committee believed that such service by members of the Ulster Constabulary would give them a broader picture of police work than they obtained in their own country.
The statutory provisions under which members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary could join English or Welsh forces are, presumably, a matter for the Stormont Parliament, but I hope that we may have from the Minister of State an assurance, so far as she can give it, that similar legislation is being introduced and will, it is hoped, be passed in the Stormont Parliament, and that the authorities in this country will encourage members of the R.U.C. to come over here on short-term engagements.
I do not want to recriminate in any way, and a lot was said during the debate on Clause 1 about the shortcomings or otherwise of the Ulster Constabulary, but we should all agree that there are undoubted advantages, as the Hunt Committee said, in officers of that force having some time in training and in normal police work with forces in this country.
Second, what is envisaged by a "short-term" engagement? Is there any defined period of years? When the words are used in the sense of the army they usually refer to a defined number of years. Is there a defined number of years on this occasion, or would it be up to the individual applying?
Finally—I think that I can bring this within Clause 2—in dealing with the disciplinary powers under Clause 2 (3) the hon. Lady has repeatedly referred to the fact that there are specific statutory provisions for those who go on short-term engagements, and said that those who go under Clause 1, on the mutual aid basis, will remain under the discipline of their home force. I did not intervene earlier on the point because I did not wish to start the debate going again on an Amendment which had run for a substantial time. But is that to be found in any place in the Bill?
The only apparent reference in the Bill to those who go under the mutual aid provisions is that during the period during which they are provided for the assistance of the Royal Ulster Constabulary they shall be under
like direction and control as a member of that force".
I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could explain where the distinction lies between the direction and control and the discipline which she has assured the Committee would remain with the chief constable in this country and not with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It would appear on a reading of the Bill—with a degree of substantial ignorance—that the words "direction and control" would be likely to include discipline. I shall be grateful if the hon. Lady will deal with that.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I wish to say a few words on two points.
First, on training, which my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has just mentioned, I hope that the Minister can say that the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who would be welcomed to this country to benefit from the training facilities here, will not simply be pushed to Bramshill and Hendon and the better-known training schools in the London area. While those schools are first class, I hope she will be able to say that the police will be encouraged to go to the many good district training schools in other forces in the country.
The second point is the thorny matter of discipline. I am still concerned about the fact that there will be two sets of disciplinary regulations under which policemen working alongside one another


will be bound. This adds yet another complication. We have the Royal Ulster Constabulary men, who know perfectly well what their disciplinary regulations are and what legislation, including the Special Powers Act, they are required to enforce. Alongside them we have two different categories of British police reinforcements. One group are those who have engaged for periods of time voluntarily, and they, as I understand it, are directly under the discipline of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and would be required in the normal way to enforce all the laws of Northern Ireland without any reservations.
Then there is a third category conceivably, those British policemen who might be sent for short periods under direction. They are under a somewhat different disciplinary code. Moreover, by the Minister's assurance they have been specifically exempted from enforcing some parts of the Northern Ireland law. The Minister must accept that this is an administratively untidy situation, one which the individual policeman will find very difficult to understand in the fast-moving circumstances with which the police frequently have to deal. I hope the hon. Lady will comment on this problem.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Would the hon. Gentleman approve of the use by the police of CS gas and Mace, in either Northern Ireland or Britain, in any part of the United Kingdom? I have experienced both—

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I do not think that that point is covered in the Clause that we are discussing at this stage.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was sitting down, Mr. Gourlay; so I will leave that point.

11.45 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: With respect to my hon. Friend, I am not sure that I can see how that matter arises on the Clause either.
We understand that provision will be made in the Stormont Bill which will satisfy on the part of the Northern Ireland Government the recommendations of the Hunt Report with regard to the interchange of personnel on a short-

service basis by attachments or secondments. The length of engagement that we and the Northern Ireland Government have in mind is between six months and three years, and it will be a matter for negotiation with the individual policeman exactly how long the engagement is between those two ends of the range.
The answer on the somewhat troubled matter of discipline is that a mutual aid policeman does not lose his membership of his home police force. Consequently, for all purposes his discipline comes under his home police force, as is the case with the present arrangements for mutual aid. I recognise that this is more important in the case of Northern Ireland.
The person who voluntarily accepts a short-service engagement becomes a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary for that period, and is, therefore, bound by its disciplinary regulations, which will be clearly explained to him. However, if he commits an offence against discipline under the terms of his short-service engagement and as a result is dismissed from the force, or is asked to resign from it, and then reverts to his home police force, it is for the chief constable of his home force then to decide what action to take. It need not be identical with that which would be taken in the same circumstances by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I do not believe I can put the position more clearly, and I hope that that will go some way to answering the hon. Gentleman's question.
The purpose of the whole Clause is to make possible short-service engagements with protection of the policeman's career. It was not possible in the past unless the policeman seconded himself with no right of reversion to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. To that extent it gives a greater freedom and security to the policeman, be he from Ulster or from England or Wales.
Whe hope that the Clause makes it possible for more training to take place on a mutual basis. It is indeed our intention that the training should be as wide as possible.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the special—one might almost say unique—abilities the British police force has shown when dealing with civil demonstrations and disturbances of various


kinds. Perhaps uniquely in the world it has shown a capacity to deal with such demonstrations without the escalation of violence. When there has been such an escalation, it has worried the police forces as much as it has worried my right hon. Friend or the hon. Gentleman.
It is with the sort of training that leads to that capacity in mind that we feel the Clause is an essential part of the Bill. I would not like to suggest that there is nothing we can learn from the Royal Ulster Constabulary about dealing with criminal actions, and we hope that our police force can benefit from its experience in that sphere.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO AID GIVEN TO A HOME POLICE FORCE BY THE ROYAL ULSTER CONSTABULARY

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Carlisle: I would like to ask a question on a point that has been raised with me by the County Councils Association relating to the payment of any force which sends aid to Northern Ireland.
Under the 1964 Police Act, where one force gives assistance to another a contribution is made by the force receiving the assistance, and in the absence of agreement on the amount of the contribution the matter is decided by the Home Secretary.
I notice that the Bill provides similar measures for assistance from Northern Ireland to this country; namely, that such contribution as may be agreed between the police authorities shall be paid, or, in default of agreement, that determined jointly by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland. May we have the assurance of the Home Office, so far as it is able to give it, that the Stormont Parliament proposes to insert a Clause in identical words for contributions towards the cost of police going from this country to assist in Northern Ireland?

Mrs. Williams: I would reply to the hon. Member by referring him to column 1069 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Second Reading debate, where he will find both assurances given fully.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

THE POLICE COUNCIL FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 35, at end insert:
(2) The staff side of the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall be represented on the Police Council for the United Kingdom by elected representatives of those of its ranks as correspond with the number in England, Wales and Scotland of chief officers, superintendents and the ranks as represented by the Police Federation.
Possibly due to the printing difficulties which we have been experiencing, a number of small typographical errors appear in the Amendment, but I think that its sense is clear and I need not elaborate them today.
It is a probing Amendment. It is to confirm what I expect the Government will be glad to confirm—that it is the intention that the new Police Council for the United Kingdom will include in respect of the Royal Ulster Constabulary representation of all three principal groups of serving officers.
It will be well known to hon. Members that in the present Police Council the staff side is represented by the Association of Chief Police Officers, by the Superintendents Association and by the Police Federation in respect of all ranks below superintendent. I hope that it is the intention of the Stormont Government, with whom, rather than the House of Commons, it lies, I believe, to make similar arrangements for R.U.C. representation on the Police Council of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that it is her expectation that the Northern Ireland Parliament will approve these arrangements, or, as it may well be, that the Northern Ireland Government will make the necessary arrangements.
If the Police Council of the United Kingdom is to be a success, it is essential that those who represent the men of the


Royal Ulster Constabulary should feel that they are as welcome at the table as those who represent men in the British forces are welcome in the Police Council. In the past, it has been a regrettable fact that the representative body in Ulster, which has done a good job in trying circumstances, has tended to be seated a little below the salt. There has been a tendency not to provide its secretary with adequate accommodation or with adequate time off in which to do his work. I am sure that a Minister representing a Labour Government of all Governments would wish to see that those representing the staff side of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were adequately housed and had adequate time in which to do their work.
Some additional financial outlay may be required in order to make the Police Council somewhat larger. I doubt whether it will be substantial, and it may well be no more than marginal. However, I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that it has been valuable for the Police Council of Great Britain occasionally to meet in Scotland. This has enabled members to travel to a different part of the Kingdom and to experience different views in a different area. It is important, particularly in the circumstances of Ulster, that the Police Council of the United Kingdom should be able occasionally to meet in Ulster, and I hope that the financial means to permit that will be provided.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman in his very winningly put remarks will recognise that this Bill is not the vehicle to carry the Amendment he has tabled. It is, of course, for the Northern Ireland Government to do as he wishes. We expect the Northern Ireland Government to legislate for a new representative body which will be acceptable to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I will give the further assurance that a new Police Council would not be acceptable to my right hon. Friend unless a provision of that kind were made. It is a prerequisite for accepting the new council.
We will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, since it is not my desire that members of the police force should find themselves below the salt in any possible situation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In the circumstances of the Minister's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I would have liked to hear her say that she would see to it that the Police Council would occasionally meet in Ulster.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 14, at end insert, 'rules or orders.'
This is a purely technical Amendment, concerning the addition of an extra three words, "rules or orders" to the Clause. The simple purpose is to cover not only regulations but rules or orders since this may be the form in which they arise. This merely remedies a drafting defect.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Under Clause 5(1) there is an arrangement whereby pensions will be able to come into effect retrospectively over a period of 12 months and will not require the normal procedure of the House of Commons in approving them. I suspect that this is in the interests of speed but since it is a new departure, would the Minister explain it?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I can assure the hon. Member that this is not a new departure. Under paragraph (6) of Schedule 3 of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1969 retrospective increases in dependants' wages were made possible. This is in the interests of speed and is not without precedent.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Mr. Carlisle: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not intend to take up more than a minute of your time. I


want to place on record the fact that we are not opposing the suggestion that Report stage should follow immediately on the Committee stage, but this should not be taken in any way as a precedent, binding the Opposition in their attitude to other Bills. This Bill is not vitally urgent, since there is a commencement date well into the future.
Amendments have been moved raising points of substance which might well have been further considered before Report. But we do not object, since we understand that the Government are anxious to obtain the Bill tonight and we support the principle behind the Bill. But I emphasise that this does not mean that in principle we are happy to have Report immediately following Committee at this late hour.

12 m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I do not merely wish to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) in noting the procedure; I regret it. Several important matters have been raised in Committee, and it would have been better to take the Bill in Committee upstairs, so that detailed points could be thrashed out and the Minister, with advice from her officials, might have been able to make verbal Amendments to the Bill. I join with my hon. Friend in feeling that it has been a mistake to proceed in this fashion. We could have had a better piece of legislation which would have been much more practical for the police to enforce.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Of course it is not the normal practice for Report to follow on Committee; on the contrary. But I am sure the House will appreciate that the Bill raises special complications, in that it is a double harness Bill with a Parliament in another place. In consequence of this, and of the urgent need not for the Bill to be made operative immediately but for another Bill complementary to this Bill to be introduced in another place, preferably within the next few days, the Bill is being treated urgently.
Because the Bill is intended to create a new and good relationship between the police forces of Northern Ireland and of this country, it would not be appropriate for the House to make it extremely

difficult, if not impossible, for another place to conduct its business in such a way that the police force can be reorganised and that recruitment can start on a basis which will bring the Royal Ulster Constabulary into very close relationship with the police forces of this country.
I thank hon. Members for their help in allowing us to get the Bill tonight, and assure the House that it is not a precedent for any other occasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CIVIL AVIATION (NEAR COLLISIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Perry.]

12.4 a.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am glad to have this opportunity of raising what is becoming an increasingly debated subject in the newspapers and in other places. It is an odd paradox that in these days modern navigational and computer aids permit Apollo 11 to take off 700 milliseconds late and arrive five minutes early on the moon, after a 102-hour journey, and at the same time permit Captain Armstrong and his crew to step out on the moon's surface three hours early without ground assistance; that it these modern navigational and computer-based aids could only be achieved on earth, substantial improvements in modern aviation could be secured.
On the North American Continent and in Europe air traffic navigational problems and air congestion have reached the point where they begin to raise serious concern. North America has reached the stage when the typical cartoon joke in the newspaper is about air congestion and the Department of Transportation is so concerned that it is prepared to spend large sums of money on subsidising ground transportation experiments in congested areas because of the great difficulties involving air traffic navigation and congestion, particularly on the north-east


corridor route between Washington, New York City and Boston.
I cannot help wondering how long it will be before we experience a similar situation in this country. I will quote from Captain Laurie Taylor, Chairman of the British Airline Pilots Association, at the start of a symposium it is holding this week, for which I commend it. He said:
I can be over mid-Atlantic or Indian Oceans and unable to communicate with air traffic control because of high frequency radio telephone system deficiencies. This happens in a year when astronauts some 200,000 miles out can be heard all over the world on television. At times I don't know where I am unless the air traffic controller tells me. Navigation information tells a pilot where he is not, rather than where he is.
This is the Chairman of B.A.L.P.A., still a practising pilot, talking, and I cannot help feeling that if he and members of his association feel so concerned about this, many of us who do not have so many flying opportunities ought also to be concerned. I do not want to be a panic-monger or scaremonger and I do not want to say that every member of the travelling public has to be concerned, because things have not reached that stage at all.
I would pay tribute to the good safety record of the nationalised air corporations, B O.A.C. and B.E.A., because it has been proved many times over that they have an excellent record. I would also pay tribute to the air traffic controllers because they do an excellent job in the difficult circumstances and difficult weather conditions we experience in this country.
I am not casting any slurs on the personnel involved in this exercise. There is a growing concern on the part of the pilots and air traffic controllers and many others involved in aviation over this matter.
Recently, air misses, the shorthand for near mid-air collisions, have been brought to public attention by press reports of an air miss on 28th July between a B.O.A.C 707 flying from New York to Heathrow and a T.W.A. aircraft flying to Zurich. This occurred 400 miles north-west of Shannon and according to a reply to a Parliamentary Question I put to the President of the Board of Trade this was in some measure due to a communications failure. I am glad to say that this failure is being investigated and I hope that my hon. Friend can

tell the House something about this breakdown tonight.
The other incident which has been brought to public attention through the press is a second air miss over Epsom on 11th November between a Boeing aircraft of E1 A1 bound for Tel Aviv and a B.O.A.C. VC.10 which had just come from Teheran.
On asking the President of the Board of Trade a question about this I was told by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) that the pilots saw each other in close proximity and took avoiding action. A steward and two passengers in the Boeing received minor injuries but no one in the VC.10 was hurt.
Apart from that, the whole thing reflects on the serious situation when two aircraft travelling at rather slow speeds can have to take this kind of action to avoid each other.
Air miss figures were quoted for last year as 120 in the Sunday Times of 16th November. I put down another Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade and was told that information was being collated for me. I was asking for the reported air miss statistics from 1960 to the present day. I hope that in his answer, my right hon. Friend will be able to provide some of this information tonight.
Perhaps an even better guide and a worse portent are the American figures for mid-air collisions and air miss statistics for last year. The Federal Aviation Administration in the U.S.A., which is responsible for air traffic safety reported 38 mid-air collisions last year. Apart from that, there were 2,230 air miss incidents. Perhaps the most worrying feature about these 2,230 was that 732 of them were in airline operations. About half of the incidents reported—in other words, 1,128—were classified as hazardous, and the remainder as non-hazardous, but the rate of hazardous incidents reported was at least one in 50,000.
I do not suggest that that is the kind of figure which we are approaching in this country, but if we do not take some action, as the density of aircraft frequencies increases and as the tendency of the public to use air transportation increases, this is perhaps the kind of


statistic that we could ultimately witness over Europe.
If I can fit the growth of the problem into a more general pattern, that is what I want to do. We are dealing with a situation in which world scheduled airline passenger traffic will double again by 1975, and it will increase by four times by 1980. That represents an annual growth rate of 12 per cent. Apart from that, we have an annual growth rate in air freight of some 20 per cent. But it is not as simple as that. Not only do we have to fit this air miss problem and these general air traffic navigational difficulties into a general background of growth; we have also to fit them into a general background of a rapidly changing pattern of air traffic.
It is over the next decade that we shall see a different pattern emerging, especially on some of the longer journeys. The supersonic air transports will take off some of the cream of the longer distances, while the subsonic traffic will be mainly carried by aircraft like the Boeing 747, the jumbo. Whereas now most scheduled carriers and even some charter operators are using 707's, DC8's and DC9's, which have mainly similar operating characteristics, in future SST's and jumbos will be used at the same time, and those two aircraft have vastly different operating characteristics. At the same time, there will be an increased use of short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing aircraft, all of which will mean a radically different pattern of traffic.
Apart from that, we shall see a great increase in light aircraft, especially for business use, and a great increase in charter operations, mainly for inclusive tour holiday travel. Last year London Heathrow Airport handled 247,431 air traffic movements. That was only the tenth largest in the world. Between 31st July, 1968, and 31st July, 1969, the number of air passengers using Heathrow as a terminal increased by 4·5 per cent. These are all measures of the increase in air passenger traffic in this country.
At O'Hare Field, Chicago, air traffic control has handled as many as 217 aircraft in one day. Most American airports are accustomed to handling at least 100. At the moment London Heathrow is hovering between 60 and 70, and it may

be that by 1979 there will be more light aircraft and charter operations than scheduled commercial frequencies.
Some action is needed, and, if I might echo the general sentiments expressed this morning at the British Airline Pilots Association's symposium, I feel that the general technical back-up on the ground is failing to keep pace with a very fast-changing air pattern in the skies.
At the last conference of the International Civil Aviation Organisations in Montreal, the organisations and airlines adopted a point source system of air traffic navigation, instead of the area navigation concept, for which the air traffic controllers' and pilots' associations have been pressing since 1950. This was a great blow to many in this country who know the great advances which have been made by British firms.
The airline pilots and air traffic controllers are advocating the area navigation concept because not only does it make far better use of air space but it helps to obviate some of the difficulties in not being able to see and be seen which many pilots encounter. The old theories about seeing and being seen by aircraft simply do not operate because of modern take-off speeds, noise restrictions, flight deck design, and so on.
No doubt my right hon. Friend will mention the new £25 million computer complex at West Drayton and the great advances being made by the Blind Man Mediator system which will ultimately cover the country, and I support him in that. At the same time, I hope the Department will do far more sounding out of the case, and far more pressing of it, for the introduction of the area navigation concept to cover not only this country but the rest of the world, particularly in congested areas.
I also put to my right hon. Friend some suggestions for further improvements. I hope he will refer to the secondary radar installations which at least give air traffic controllers some height indication. Secondary radar is still lacking in many airports even in this country. We can, of course, have improvements in runways and talk about taking runway specifications and airports up to categories 2 and 3, but secondary radar is urgently needed in many places.
I hope my right hon. Friend will mention the computerisation of data and other computer facilities and satellite communication, which avoids the ground bounce which has to be done on radio waves and on which Pan Am and T.W.A. are already co-operating with the Federal Aviation Agency in interesting experiments.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will mention something about the need to prevent the stacking of aircraft around major airports because it is estimated that at least 40 per cent. of the possible collision prospects occur within the stacking concept and stacking zones. I hope he will also refer to collision avoidance systems, about which a great deal is being done in the United States.
My time is short. I should have liked to say more about the great concern of B.A.L.P.A. about Luton. Since an Observer report on 22nd June, in which it was stated that there was a rather tangled complex of possibilities involving light aircraft, scheduled aircraft, charters, gliders and even parachutists, the association has been very concerned and is keeping a special dossier on air miss statistics.
Since the intention of myself and others to raise this in various places was announced, several of my hon. Friends have voiced their concern about their own local airport situations. Concern has been expressed to me about Cardiff, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) shows some concern about Glasgow, Turnhouse.
I appreciate that many of the concepts I am advancing are going to be opposed to a certain extent by the light aircraft lobby. I know that there is a growing number of light aircraft and business aircraft users and that they are building themselves up into a powerful lobby. At the same time I would point out that B.A.L.P.A., which is pushing strongly for area navigation concepts and other improvements, has among its members many who are light aircraft pilots themselves.
What I am trying to ask for is a declaration of the Department's intention to take this matter much more seriously than it appears to have done hitherto. We are talking of a situation illustrated by a recent article in Flight International, which said that an examination of air accident statistics that it conducted,

showed that eight out of 13 accidents had been caused by "navigational difficulties".
"Navigational difficulties" covers a multitude of difficulties; but I venture to suggest that most of these come under the kind of headings to which I have been referring. Accident statistics for aircraft, both chartered and scheduled, are not improving. Concern about the principle of stacking aircraft waiting to come into major airports increases. We are talking about all this at a time when air travel is no longer for the minority. Air travel is coming within the reach of many more pockets not only on inclusive tour operations, but also on chartered operations and, indeed, on worldwide scheduled operations.
Without wishing to alarm my right hon. Friend and without wishing to get him to make any panic-mongering statement, I should like to draw to his attention my concern and that of the British Airline Pilots Association in the hope that he will be able to give me and some of the many others who are concerned about this matter some kind of reassurances.

12.21 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has said, may I ask the Minister whether he has given a directive yet that no light aircraft should be allowed to take off from Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh, or that there should be military diversions from Luton to Turnhouse, pending examination of the alleged air miss which I brought to his attention following an Adjournment debate last week?

12.22 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): I think the House would agree that it would be difficult, indeed impossible, to overemphasise the importance of the subject which my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has raised tonight.
There is the very special nature of the hazard. Air misses involve a higher risk of death, compared with injury, than the hazards of road traffic or even sea traffic. Further, there is an increasing number of people travelling by air, and that number is bound to increase in the years


ahead. The air space of these islands is limited, air traffic routes are becoming more crowded and aircraft speeds have increased and are increasing.
My first point, therefore, is to say emphatically that no one, certainly no Minister, wishes to minimise the importance of these risks or to be in any way complacent about taking the fullest precautions against the possibility of collision in mid-air.
My second point will emerge, I hope, when I have dealt with the first, which is that we should all avoid the temptation to sensationalise the facts, thus creating unnecessary alarm beyond the point of unceasing vigilance.
My hon. Friend has again mentioned his concern, which he expressed in two Questions to which I replied the other day, about recent mid-air near collisions Indeed, two air misses have recently been reported. One took place in mid-Atlantic last July and the other on 11th November in the Epsom area. The second is now the subject of investigation by the Chief Inspector of Accidents. I gave the House details of these incidents in answers recently to Questions tabled by my hon. Friend. I should, however, like to set these incidents against the background of what is being done to ensure safety of movement in the air space for which the United Kingdom Government are responsible.
I cannot, in the time available tonight, describe in detail the air traffic system and the system of navigational aids which guide the movement of aircraft in this country. We have a National Air Traffic Control Service which is jointly civil and military and makes use of both civil and military equipments. The basic means of providing safe operation is by advance planning and by air traffic control based on flight progress forecasts kept up to date by reports in flight. Increasing use is made of radar, both civil and military, and 1,500 controllers operate the system. I believe that most pilots would express their appreciation of the standard of service that they receive from British controllers and agree that our standards bear comparison with standards in any other part of the world.
I should like to refer the House to some figures relating to the movements of public transport aircraft in this country. I shall take the period from 1963, the first complete year covered by the present reporting system for air miss incidents. First, there have been no collisions involving public transport aircraft in that period. Second, of the reports received over the period, there have been 34 incidents assessed as involving actual risk, or an average of about five a year. The numbers are too small to be statistically significant, but they show that there was no pattern of growth from year to year in the last seven years; nor, incidentally, do the total number of incidents reported, notwithstanding that the total of air transport movements in this country grew from about 480,000 in 1962 to more than 610,000 in 1969. Over the same period there were seven mid-air collisions involving civil aircraft other than public transport aircraft, and of the reports received, 57 incidents were assessed as involving actual risk to civil aircraft other than public transport aircraft.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I presume that my hon. Friend has taken note of the fact that both B.A.L.P.A. and the International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations feel that many of these reports tend to understate the true number of air misses?

Mr. Roberts: I would not agree with my hon. Friend. I have gone into this very carefully, and as objectively as possible, because, like my hon. Friend, and indeed everybody else, I am deeply concerned about the dangers inherent in the situation. I do not minimise them for a moment. I shall come to the matter of reports by pilots. I do not accept what my hon. Friend has said as necessarily being the true position.
I do not want the House to think that there is any complacency in any quarter, ministerial or otherwise, about this problem, and I assure my hon. Friend that there is none in my Department. None of us would for a moment wish to leave the matter where the figures—7 and 34, against a background of 610,000 movements—might lead us to leave it. We would not be justified in leaving the matter there. We may be thankful that the number of incidents of actual risk


is so small, but we should be all the more determined to reduce it and, so far as is humanly possible, to eliminate it.
What steps are being taken to achieve this? Are we doing all that we can? First, let me emphasise the continuous and independent study which is given to the problem. Air misses are of great significance as pointers to ways in which aircraft operation, air traffic control, pilot training, and navigational systems may be improved in order to maintain and improve the safety level in relation to the growing amount of air traffic using our air space. These very incidents have the seeds of present and future improvements in precautionary measures; so we naturally attach the greatest importance to investigating reports and taking practicable measures if there are lessons to be learned from them.
The system depends on getting reports of incidents. In the first place these can come only from pilots. With the support of the airlines and the British Air Line Pilots Association, we therefore encourage pilots to report all incidents where they think there was any possibility whatever that a risk of collision existed or might have existed. There is, I am glad to say, a very good response, and reports come in over a wide range, from pilots of light civil aircraft to the captains of civil and military four-engined jets.
I do not accept that these reports underestimate the actual or potential risk inherent in the incidents which they describe. Naturally, in these circumstances, one would expect that a good number would prove on investigation that no risk had in fact existed. That is the position. The great majority of these reports, after being stringently scrutinised according to a procedure which I hope I can describe later, reveal that no risk attended the incident. Nevertheless, even from reports of non-risk accidents, lessons can be learned and they are all studied to seek possible improvements. This applies even to incidents where absolutely no risk was found, because they may still reveal where conditions can be improved to prevent what might be serious occurrences.
I would emphasise how important it is to secure a sufficient number of reports in order to get useful information, and

I would repeat how well pilots are supporting the effort. Incidentally, this is why it has not been the practice to publish details of particular air misses, since we feel that to do so could inhibit the full and frank flow of information on this to the authorities.
The system works in this way. As soon as a report is received, inquiries are set on foot by the National Air Traffic Control Service to trace and identify aircraft, where necessary; to obtain statements from those concerned, whether pilots or air traffic control officers or others; and to collate this information. If the initial reports show a clear need for urgent action, this is, of course, taken straight away without waiting for the completion of the full information. The information is then brought together for consideration by the Air Miss Working Group. This meets under a chairman who is a qualified military pilot and consists of representatives from B.E.A.—and B.O.A.C. is represented through the presence of B.E.A.— B.A.L.P.A., the International Air Transport Association—I.A.T.A.—the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators, the General Aviation Safety Committee, the Royal Navy, the Flight Safety Directorate of the Ministry of Defence, and the Directorate of Flying of the Ministry of Technology, with advisers present from N.A.T.C.S. and Eurocontrol.
The Air Miss Working Group meets regularly to review the air misses, assess the degree of risk, determine their causes, comment on remedial action, determine trends and make recommendations. The reports and recommendations are used as one of the bases for any further action required.
I hope what I have said will show that the organisation for obtaining and acting on air miss reports is thorough and effective. In one respect it is revolutionary—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, wihout Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.